Licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licensing

Peter Haworth
I'm still highly confused about how to license lcStackBrowser in a way that
allows it to be run in the Community Edition.

From the programing perspective, it's a couple of minutes work to remove
the password protection. There will still be a charge for a license.

The major issue I have if I understand the GPL license and the Creative
Commons license correctly is that they both allow a licensed user to
"convey" the code to anyone they choose free of charge and that's not
acceptable to me.  I guess that makes it not "open source" but the
objective here is to make it available to Community Edition users, I don't
really care if it meets the criteria to be called "open source".

The basics for me are as follows.

You can run the stack, modify or add to it in any way you choose for your
own personal use.

If you have modified or added to the code and you run into a problem, I
will not support it unless the problem also occurs in the unmodified
version of the stack.

You may not give or sell the license to anyone else irrespective of whether
you have modified the code.  I accept that there is no practical way for me
to enforce this but it at least needs to be stated in the license agreement.

I may allow you to transfer the license if you request permission to do so.

Is there in fact an existing license template that meets the above criteria?


Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Charles E Buchwald
I'd be very curious about this myself. I have some newer versions of some of tools which I have given away in the past, and I would like to release some kind of paid versions....
- Charles

> On 05 Jan 2015, at 2:28 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm still highly confused about how to license lcStackBrowser in a way that
> allows it to be run in the Community Edition.
>
> From the programing perspective, it's a couple of minutes work to remove
> the password protection. There will still be a charge for a license.
>
> The major issue I have if I understand the GPL license and the Creative
> Commons license correctly is that they both allow a licensed user to
> "convey" the code to anyone they choose free of charge and that's not
> acceptable to me.  I guess that makes it not "open source" but the
> objective here is to make it available to Community Edition users, I don't
> really care if it meets the criteria to be called "open source".
>
> The basics for me are as follows.
>
> You can run the stack, modify or add to it in any way you choose for your
> own personal use.
>
> If you have modified or added to the code and you run into a problem, I
> will not support it unless the problem also occurs in the unmodified
> version of the stack.
>
> You may not give or sell the license to anyone else irrespective of whether
> you have modified the code.  I accept that there is no practical way for me
> to enforce this but it at least needs to be stated in the license agreement.
>
> I may allow you to transfer the license if you request permission to do so.
>
> Is there in fact an existing license template that meets the above criteria?
>
>
> Pete
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
> SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

--
Charles E. Buchwald
CEO/Director General, Museografica Digital • http://digital.museografica.com
LC Developer Tools: http://buchwald.ca • Email Notice: http://wp.me/P3aT4d-33

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Vaughn Clement
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
Hi Pete

Did you ever get the solution for the Beta from LiveCode? I am still
waiting to hear back from you when it is solved?

Thank you

Vaughn Clement

On Target Solutions LLC (Support)
On Target Solutions LLC Website: http://www.ontargetsolutions.biz
Email: [hidden email]
Skype: vaughn.clement

FaceTime: [hidden email]
Ph. 928-254-9062


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm still highly confused about how to license lcStackBrowser in a way that
> allows it to be run in the Community Edition.
>
> From the programing perspective, it's a couple of minutes work to remove
> the password protection. There will still be a charge for a license.
>
> The major issue I have if I understand the GPL license and the Creative
> Commons license correctly is that they both allow a licensed user to
> "convey" the code to anyone they choose free of charge and that's not
> acceptable to me.  I guess that makes it not "open source" but the
> objective here is to make it available to Community Edition users, I don't
> really care if it meets the criteria to be called "open source".
>
> The basics for me are as follows.
>
> You can run the stack, modify or add to it in any way you choose for your
> own personal use.
>
> If you have modified or added to the code and you run into a problem, I
> will not support it unless the problem also occurs in the unmodified
> version of the stack.
>
> You may not give or sell the license to anyone else irrespective of whether
> you have modified the code.  I accept that there is no practical way for me
> to enforce this but it at least needs to be stated in the license
> agreement.
>
> I may allow you to transfer the license if you request permission to do so.
>
> Is there in fact an existing license template that meets the above
> criteria?
>
>
> Pete
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
> SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Andrew Kluthe-2
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
No, I think it would have to use the same license as livecode in this
situation as all applications made with community edition are required to
comply as well. Unless, runrev makes an exception and allows you to run
non-gpl plugins in their gpl ide (stacks made by commercial version but
used in the community version?).

Seems like a lot of people solve this by making the commercial version have
more current feature sets or better support than the community editions.

https://www.zetetic.net/sqlcipher/open-source/



On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm still highly confused about how to license lcStackBrowser in a way that
> allows it to be run in the Community Edition.
>
> From the programing perspective, it's a couple of minutes work to remove
> the password protection. There will still be a charge for a license.
>
> The major issue I have if I understand the GPL license and the Creative
> Commons license correctly is that they both allow a licensed user to
> "convey" the code to anyone they choose free of charge and that's not
> acceptable to me.  I guess that makes it not "open source" but the
> objective here is to make it available to Community Edition users, I don't
> really care if it meets the criteria to be called "open source".
>
> The basics for me are as follows.
>
> You can run the stack, modify or add to it in any way you choose for your
> own personal use.
>
> If you have modified or added to the code and you run into a problem, I
> will not support it unless the problem also occurs in the unmodified
> version of the stack.
>
> You may not give or sell the license to anyone else irrespective of whether
> you have modified the code.  I accept that there is no practical way for me
> to enforce this but it at least needs to be stated in the license
> agreement.
>
> I may allow you to transfer the license if you request permission to do so.
>
> Is there in fact an existing license template that meets the above
> criteria?
>
>
> Pete
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
> SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



--
Regards,

Andrew Kluthe
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Bill Vlahos
In this case the software in question (like my lcTaskList) is a tool for use in the IDE not a library or object that would be included in a product made with LiveCode.

There is no way to tell if this software is written in the Community Edition vs. the Commercial Edition. If the program was password protected you would know it could only be created and used in the Commercial Edition. The differentiator in this case is the lack of password protection which allows the plugins to work in either edition.

I have a copyright notice in lcTaskList so the work is protected against copyright violation even though the source code is visible in the same way as books are visible yet copyrighted. It is not free nor can it be sold or distributed to other people.

Making different versions of the software makes sense in some circumstances but that is more commonly done with making a demo or trial version that has limitations. In the case of lcTaskList there is only one version which works and costs the same for both versions. Buying it is just like buying any other software. As Peter pointed out there just isn’t any way to make a trial version of software that works in the Community Edition unless the trial version is different than the release version. Since this type of a trial version is feature limited the user doesn’t really know all the things the program can do.

One way to help customers is to offer a money back guarantee (lcTaskList does through the LiveCode Store).

Bill Vlahos
_________________
InfoWallet (http://www.infowallet.com) is about keeping your important life information with you, accessible, and secure.
lcTaskList: (http://www.infowallet.com/lctasklist/index.htm)
RunRev lcTaskList Forum: (http://forums.runrev.com/viewforum.php?f=61)

> On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Kluthe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> No, I think it would have to use the same license as livecode in this
> situation as all applications made with community edition are required to
> comply as well. Unless, runrev makes an exception and allows you to run
> non-gpl plugins in their gpl ide (stacks made by commercial version but
> used in the community version?).
>
> Seems like a lot of people solve this by making the commercial version have
> more current feature sets or better support than the community editions.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Peter Haworth
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the input.

I think I'm homing in on how to do this.

My web site will have 3-4 videos on the main features of the product and
also the User Guide.

User buys the product and gets either a download link and maybe a license
key as Mark suggested.

I have a license agreement in my SQLiteAdmin program that with a few minor
alterations will work for lcStackBrowser.

I already have an installer stack and will make that into a standalone
which has the license agreement built into it.  When the installer runs for
the first time, it will display the license agreement and note that by
installing they are accepting its terms.

I'll also put the license agreement into the main stack script although
anyone would be able to remove it.  And just for kicks, I'll put it into a
file on my web site and provide a way to display it from the product.

Yes, I know this is somewhat paranoid but it makes me feel comfortable
enough that I think I'm ready to make things available for the Community
Edition.



Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Bill Vlahos <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In this case the software in question (like my lcTaskList) is a tool for
> use in the IDE not a library or object that would be included in a product
> made with LiveCode.
>
> There is no way to tell if this software is written in the Community
> Edition vs. the Commercial Edition. If the program was password protected
> you would know it could only be created and used in the Commercial Edition.
> The differentiator in this case is the lack of password protection which
> allows the plugins to work in either edition.
>
> I have a copyright notice in lcTaskList so the work is protected against
> copyright violation even though the source code is visible in the same way
> as books are visible yet copyrighted. It is not free nor can it be sold or
> distributed to other people.
>
> Making different versions of the software makes sense in some
> circumstances but that is more commonly done with making a demo or trial
> version that has limitations. In the case of lcTaskList there is only one
> version which works and costs the same for both versions. Buying it is just
> like buying any other software. As Peter pointed out there just isn’t any
> way to make a trial version of software that works in the Community Edition
> unless the trial version is different than the release version. Since this
> type of a trial version is feature limited the user doesn’t really know all
> the things the program can do.
>
> One way to help customers is to offer a money back guarantee (lcTaskList
> does through the LiveCode Store).
>
> Bill Vlahos
> _________________
> InfoWallet (http://www.infowallet.com) is about keeping your important
> life information with you, accessible, and secure.
> lcTaskList: (http://www.infowallet.com/lctasklist/index.htm)
> RunRev lcTaskList Forum: (http://forums.runrev.com/viewforum.php?f=61)
>
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Kluthe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > No, I think it would have to use the same license as livecode in this
> > situation as all applications made with community edition are required to
> > comply as well. Unless, runrev makes an exception and allows you to run
> > non-gpl plugins in their gpl ide (stacks made by commercial version but
> > used in the community version?).
> >
> > Seems like a lot of people solve this by making the commercial version
> have
> > more current feature sets or better support than the community editions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Simon Smith-2
Hi

While I don't have have much experience with the LiveCode GPL, I have spent
some time looking at how the GPL is used with systems, so not certain with
how this would translate

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
> Thanks for the input.
>
> I think I'm homing in on how to do this.
>
> My web site will have 3-4 videos on the main features of the product and
> also the User Guide.
>
> User buys the product and gets either a download link and maybe a license
> key as Mark suggested.
>
> I have a license agreement in my SQLiteAdmin program that with a few minor
> alterations will work for lcStackBrowser.
>
> I already have an installer stack and will make that into a standalone
> which has the license agreement built into it.  When the installer runs for
> the first time, it will display the license agreement and note that by
> installing they are accepting its terms.
>
> I'll also put the license agreement into the main stack script although
> anyone would be able to remove it.  And just for kicks, I'll put it into a
> file on my web site and provide a way to display it from the product.
>
> Yes, I know this is somewhat paranoid but it makes me feel comfortable
> enough that I think I'm ready to make things available for the Community
> Edition.
>
>
>
> Pete
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
> Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
> SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Bill Vlahos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > In this case the software in question (like my lcTaskList) is a tool for
> > use in the IDE not a library or object that would be included in a
> product
> > made with LiveCode.
> >
> > There is no way to tell if this software is written in the Community
> > Edition vs. the Commercial Edition. If the program was password protected
> > you would know it could only be created and used in the Commercial
> Edition.
> > The differentiator in this case is the lack of password protection which
> > allows the plugins to work in either edition.
> >
> > I have a copyright notice in lcTaskList so the work is protected against
> > copyright violation even though the source code is visible in the same
> way
> > as books are visible yet copyrighted. It is not free nor can it be sold
> or
> > distributed to other people.
> >
> > Making different versions of the software makes sense in some
> > circumstances but that is more commonly done with making a demo or trial
> > version that has limitations. In the case of lcTaskList there is only one
> > version which works and costs the same for both versions. Buying it is
> just
> > like buying any other software. As Peter pointed out there just isn’t any
> > way to make a trial version of software that works in the Community
> Edition
> > unless the trial version is different than the release version. Since
> this
> > type of a trial version is feature limited the user doesn’t really know
> all
> > the things the program can do.
> >
> > One way to help customers is to offer a money back guarantee (lcTaskList
> > does through the LiveCode Store).
> >
> > Bill Vlahos
> > _________________
> > InfoWallet (http://www.infowallet.com) is about keeping your important
> > life information with you, accessible, and secure.
> > lcTaskList: (http://www.infowallet.com/lctasklist/index.htm)
> > RunRev lcTaskList Forum: (http://forums.runrev.com/viewforum.php?f=61)
> >
> > > On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Kluthe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I think it would have to use the same license as livecode in this
> > > situation as all applications made with community edition are required
> to
> > > comply as well. Unless, runrev makes an exception and allows you to run
> > > non-gpl plugins in their gpl ide (stacks made by commercial version but
> > > used in the community version?).
> > >
> > > Seems like a lot of people solve this by making the commercial version
> > have
> > > more current feature sets or better support than the community
> editions.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



--

*Simon Smith*
*seo, online marketing, web development*

w. http://www.simonsmith.co
m. +27 83 306 7862
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Bill Vlahos
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
Pete,

I’m glad you are getting comfortable with this. I know it has been a struggle.

Bill

> On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> Thanks for the input.
>
> I think I'm homing in on how to do this.
>
> My web site will have 3-4 videos on the main features of the product and
> also the User Guide.
>
> User buys the product and gets either a download link and maybe a license
> key as Mark suggested.
>
> I have a license agreement in my SQLiteAdmin program that with a few minor
> alterations will work for lcStackBrowser.
>
> I already have an installer stack and will make that into a standalone
> which has the license agreement built into it.  When the installer runs for
> the first time, it will display the license agreement and note that by
> installing they are accepting its terms.
>
> I'll also put the license agreement into the main stack script although
> anyone would be able to remove it.  And just for kicks, I'll put it into a
> file on my web site and provide a way to display it from the product.
>
> Yes, I know this is somewhat paranoid but it makes me feel comfortable
> enough that I think I'm ready to make things available for the Community
> Edition.
>
>
>
> Pete

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Simon Smith-2
In reply to this post by Simon Smith-2
oops, gmail acting up :(

Hi

I like Bill's advise

While I don't have have much experience with the LiveCode GPL, I have spent
some time looking at how the GPL is used with other software,(especially
WordPress), so not certain with how this would translate to LiveCode.

WP Developers that follow the GPL do on the whole seem to be very
successfull. Those that don't follow the GPL can also be equally
successfull, many on the other hand don't survive the public backlash.

There is also a growing trend in only doing licencing / support / updates
on an annual basis and moving away from lifetime support.

Going GPL / Opensource etc is definitly a leap of faith.

I think one of the most important thing's to offer though is great service
/ support to go with the software. Put the support and even documentation
behind a secure login, and it can go a long way to making a copy /
"unlicenced" version unattractive. It also makes the logistics of handling
support much easier.

Simon


On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Simon Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> While I don't have have much experience with the LiveCode GPL, I have
> spent some time looking at how the GPL is used with systems, so not certain
> with how this would translate
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>> Thanks for the input.
>>
>> I think I'm homing in on how to do this.
>>
>> My web site will have 3-4 videos on the main features of the product and
>> also the User Guide.
>>
>> User buys the product and gets either a download link and maybe a license
>> key as Mark suggested.
>>
>> I have a license agreement in my SQLiteAdmin program that with a few minor
>> alterations will work for lcStackBrowser.
>>
>> I already have an installer stack and will make that into a standalone
>> which has the license agreement built into it.  When the installer runs
>> for
>> the first time, it will display the license agreement and note that by
>> installing they are accepting its terms.
>>
>> I'll also put the license agreement into the main stack script although
>> anyone would be able to remove it.  And just for kicks, I'll put it into a
>> file on my web site and provide a way to display it from the product.
>>
>> Yes, I know this is somewhat paranoid but it makes me feel comfortable
>> enough that I think I'm ready to make things available for the Community
>> Edition.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pete
>> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
>> Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
>> SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Bill Vlahos <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > In this case the software in question (like my lcTaskList) is a tool for
>> > use in the IDE not a library or object that would be included in a
>> product
>> > made with LiveCode.
>> >
>> > There is no way to tell if this software is written in the Community
>> > Edition vs. the Commercial Edition. If the program was password
>> protected
>> > you would know it could only be created and used in the Commercial
>> Edition.
>> > The differentiator in this case is the lack of password protection which
>> > allows the plugins to work in either edition.
>> >
>> > I have a copyright notice in lcTaskList so the work is protected against
>> > copyright violation even though the source code is visible in the same
>> way
>> > as books are visible yet copyrighted. It is not free nor can it be sold
>> or
>> > distributed to other people.
>> >
>> > Making different versions of the software makes sense in some
>> > circumstances but that is more commonly done with making a demo or trial
>> > version that has limitations. In the case of lcTaskList there is only
>> one
>> > version which works and costs the same for both versions. Buying it is
>> just
>> > like buying any other software. As Peter pointed out there just isn’t
>> any
>> > way to make a trial version of software that works in the Community
>> Edition
>> > unless the trial version is different than the release version. Since
>> this
>> > type of a trial version is feature limited the user doesn’t really know
>> all
>> > the things the program can do.
>> >
>> > One way to help customers is to offer a money back guarantee (lcTaskList
>> > does through the LiveCode Store).
>> >
>> > Bill Vlahos
>> > _________________
>> > InfoWallet (http://www.infowallet.com) is about keeping your important
>> > life information with you, accessible, and secure.
>> > lcTaskList: (http://www.infowallet.com/lctasklist/index.htm)
>> > RunRev lcTaskList Forum: (http://forums.runrev.com/viewforum.php?f=61)
>> >
>> > > On Jan 5, 2015, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Kluthe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > No, I think it would have to use the same license as livecode in this
>> > > situation as all applications made with community edition are
>> required to
>> > > comply as well. Unless, runrev makes an exception and allows you to
>> run
>> > > non-gpl plugins in their gpl ide (stacks made by commercial version
>> but
>> > > used in the community version?).
>> > >
>> > > Seems like a lot of people solve this by making the commercial version
>> > have
>> > > more current feature sets or better support than the community
>> editions.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > use-livecode mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> > subscription preferences:
>> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Simon Smith*
> *seo, online marketing, web development*
>
> w. http://www.simonsmith.co
> m. +27 83 306 7862
>



--

*Simon Smith*
*seo, online marketing, web development*

w. http://www.simonsmith.co
m. +27 83 306 7862
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Richard Gaskin
Simon Smith wrote:

 > While I don't have have much experience with the LiveCode GPL, I
 > have spent some time looking at how the GPL is used with other
 > software,(especially WordPress), so not certain with how this would
 > translate to LiveCode.
 >
 > WP Developers that follow the GPL do on the whole seem to be very
 > successfull. Those that don't follow the GPL can also be equally
 > successfull, many on the other hand don't survive the public backlash.

Wordpress is very explicit about their intentions with their license:

    Part of this license outlines requirements for derivative works,
    such as plugins or themes. Derivatives of WordPress code inherit
    the GPL license. Drupal, which has the same GPL license as
    WordPress, has an excellent page on licensing as it applies to
    themes and modules (their word for plugins).
<https://wordpress.org/about/license/>

They also note that add-ons that share processing and memory space but
do not copy code are a "gray area", and I wrote about this at length
here a while back:
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2013-December/196463.html>

Since I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were my opinion couldn't be
relevant unless I were also the judge presiding over this (and AFAIK the
definition of "derivative work" has never been tested in court, so no
such judge yet exists), I've taken a more simple-minded view:

I see two approaches to using other people's stuff, which we could call
"antagonistic" and "supportive".

An antagonistic approach seeks to use the work in whatever way one can
personally justify for one's own advantage, even if that use clearly
contradicts the intentions of the creator of the work.  Such an approach
may prevail in court, or not, leaving oneself vulnerable to risk of
being found in violation of copyright.  And in the meantime, while it
may provide some small advantage to use others' work this way, it
antagonizes those providing the very resources that makes one's own work
possible, turning would-be partners into enemies.

A supportive approach sees works made available to us under GPL as a
generous gift, and if we choose to use such a work we support those who
make our work possible by honoring their intentions.  Given the many
ways code can be executed by other code, it may not be practical to
attempt to enumerate them all to attempt to reach a satisfying
definition of "derivative work", but if we honor the intentions of those
whose work we use we're unlikely to motivate them to take us to court.
On the contrary, we help popularize their platform and work together as
partners.


RunRev's view of "derivative works" seems consistent with that of
Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, and others, so for myself, when I distribute
things for users of LiveCode Community Edition to use, I do so under GPL
or GPL-compatible license.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Peter Haworth
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> RunRev's view of "derivative works" seems consistent with that of
> Wordpress, Drupal, Joomla, and others, so for myself, when I distribute
> things for users of LiveCode Community Edition to use, I do so under GPL or
> GPL-compatible license.


Thanks Richard for the clarification.

Just to clarify and make sure I'm not about to break an licensing rules, my
proposed license for lcStackBrowser is not GPL compatible since it will
specifically prohibit a licensed user from giving its code to anyone else
or using its code in any of their products without my consent, except in
the form of a license transfer approved by me.  They can of course change,
add to, or delete the code for their own personal use.

However, the stack will be running in Livecode Community Edition which is
GPL licensed so hopefully  an lcStackbrowser user would not be in breach of
Livecode's Community Edition license. Always remembering that
lcStackBrowser is strictly a development utility and has no part to play in
the execution of a stack or a standalone.

Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Richard Gaskin
Peter Haworth wrote:
 > Just to clarify and make sure I'm not about to break an licensing
 > rules, my proposed license for lcStackBrowser is not GPL compatible
 > since it will specifically prohibit a licensed user from giving its
 > code to anyone else or using its code in any of their products
 > without my consent, except in the form of a license transfer approved
 > by me.  They can of course change, add to, or delete the code for
 > their own personal use.
 >
 > However, the stack will be running in Livecode Community Edition
 > which is GPL licensed so hopefully  an lcStackbrowser user would not
 > be in breach of Livecode's Community Edition license. Always
 > remembering that lcStackBrowser is strictly a development utility
 > and has no part to play in the execution of a stack or a standalone.

Any plugins made with the Commercial Edition and used within the
Commercial Edition IDE can have any license you like so long as it
doesn't conflict with the terms of the Commercial Edition EULA, which is
pretty liberal.

I can't speak for Kevin so hopefully he'll chime in here with any
clarifications that may be needed, but my understanding of RunRev's
position on the Community Edition is consistent with the GPL
interpretation used by Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, and others, in which
all code running in the same engine is governed by the license for that
engine.

Because LC is dual-license our situation is less clear than with
GPL-only systems like Wordpress, so being neither a lawyer nor Kevin I
would venture only these assumptions and rely on Kevin to clarify:

If a plugin is made with the Commercial Edition, it can be run within
the Community Edition under GPL or any GPL-compatible license - the FSF
has a list of GPL-compatible licenses here:
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses>

If a plugin is created with the Community Edition, it must use the same
license the Community Edition uses, GPL v3.

This interpretation seems consistent with the LC FAQ:

     Can I use closed source libraries, components or embed LiveCode
     in a closed source application?

     You cannot redistribute software that includes closed source
     libraries with the open source version of LiveCode. Anything
     that is part of your application must be made available under
     the same GPL license.
<http://livecode.com/support/ask-a-question/>

That said, the wording there is a bit unclear (did they mean to write
"...in an open source application"?), and it addresses a standalone
rather than the IDE itself.

Still, I tend toward a conservative approach for my own work, so
anything I distribute for use in the Commercial Edition IDE as at least
GPL-compatible if not GPL v3 specifically.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]                http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Peter Haworth
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> If a plugin is created with the Community Edition, it must use the same
> license the Community Edition uses, GPL v3.


OK, well if that's true, it puts a stop to my plan.  I don't mind opening
up the source code but I'm not prepared to allow it to be given to anyone a
user chooses free of charge.  I understand that practically I can't stop
that happening but I want to at least expressly forbid it in the license
agreement.

Hopefully Kevin will chime in to clarify this, specifically in terms of a
plugin like lcStackbrowser that plays no part in the execution of a stack
or a standalone built from a stack.

In the past I've played around with the idea of making lcStackBrowser a
standalone with a small plugin that enables it to communicate back and
forth to the IDE over a socket, with that plugin being open source.  But
that's an awful lot of work.

Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Dr. Hawkins
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Peter Haworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You can run the stack, modify or add to it in any way you choose for your
> own personal use.
>
> If you have modified or added to the code and you run into a problem, I
> will not support it unless the problem also occurs in the unmodified
> version of the stack.
>
> You may not give or sell the license to anyone else irrespective of whether
> you have modified the code.  I accept that there is no practical way for me
> to enforce this but it at least needs to be stated in the license
> agreement.
>

Actually, this language would probably do what you're trying to do.

If you've created your code with the commercial edition, you can use any
license you desire.  It is not "derived from" the community version for
purposes of its license.

With the code unlocked, and licensed from you, your customer can use it,
and no violation is using.

Your program can *contribute* to the code being produced by the community
edition,  and the CE license viraly attaches to the result.  Still no
problem.

There is only an issue if your code uses/includes language from the CE (and
then it is a problem before they even  write code), or if a combination
made with the CE and yours produces code and attempts to apply anything
from your license.

No problem; your license allows anything it writes for the user to be
released under the CE license--it would only be a problem if you attempted
to impose your license on the output

The question remains, though, as to how many $30 tools you can sell to
people that won't pay $100 for the LC software itself . . . and whether
this even puts a dent into the lost revenue from those that illegally
distribute your code . . .

--
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

mwieder
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
Pete-

Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 7:02:22 PM, you wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Richard Gaskin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:

>> If a plugin is created with the Community Edition, it must use the same
>> license the Community Edition uses, GPL v3.


> OK, well if that's true, it puts a stop to my plan.

I wouldn't worry about that. What Richard's saying would apply if your
end-users were bundling your plugin with the stacks they distribute.
Since your plugin operates wholly within the IDE in the developer's
ecosystem there's no conflict.

--
-Mark Wieder
 [hidden email]

This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not
consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any
related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting,
disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received
this communication in error, please delete it immediately.


_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware@gmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Peter Haworth
OK, thanks Mark, this is so confusing.  Maybe the best approach is to just
do it and adopt the "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" axiom"

Pete
lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
Home of lcStackBrowser <http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html> and
SQLiteAdmin <http://www.lcsql.com/sqliteadmin.html>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Mark Wieder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pete-
>
> Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 7:02:22 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Richard Gaskin <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> If a plugin is created with the Community Edition, it must use the same
> >> license the Community Edition uses, GPL v3.
>
>
> > OK, well if that's true, it puts a stop to my plan.
>
> I wouldn't worry about that. What Richard's saying would apply if your
> end-users were bundling your plugin with the stacks they distribute.
> Since your plugin operates wholly within the IDE in the developer's
> ecosystem there's no conflict.
>
> --
> -Mark Wieder
>  [hidden email]
>
> This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
> Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not
> consent to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any
> related metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting,
> disseminating, or otherwise using it. If you believe you have received
> this communication in error, please delete it immediately.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Kay C Lan
In reply to this post by mwieder
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Mark Wieder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I wouldn't worry about that. What Richard's saying would apply if your
> end-users were bundling your plugin with the stacks they distribute.
> Since your plugin operates wholly within the IDE in the developer's
> ecosystem there's no conflict.
>

Whilst I agree with 'your' interpretation of Peter's situation, that is not
what Richard wrote. He said:

all code running in the same engine is governed by the license for that
engine.

If a plugin is made with the Commercial Edition, it can be run within the
Community Edition under GPL or any GPL-compatible license.

For an ideology that is suppose to remove restrictions on software it's
surprising how confusing, restrictive and detrimental it can be.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Richard Gaskin
Kay C Lan wrote:

> Whilst I agree with 'your' interpretation of Peter's situation, that is not
> what Richard wrote. He said:
>
> all code running in the same engine is governed by the license for that
> engine.
>
> If a plugin is made with the Commercial Edition, it can be run within the
> Community Edition under GPL or any GPL-compatible license.

Yep, that's what I wrote, though I should note again that I'm neither a
lawyer nor Kevin - that's just what I see in major GPL-governed systems
like Wordpress, Drupal, and Joomla.

The lack of a specific definition for "derivative work" has been a very
contentious issue in the Joomla world and elsewhere - I covered this in
detail last year:
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2013-December/196463.html>

I've already linked to the Wordpress page on this - here's the Drupal one:

    7: If I write a module or theme, do I have to license it under
    the GPL?

    Yes. Drupal modules and themes are a derivative work of Drupal.
    If you distribute them, you must do so under the terms of the
    GPL version 2 or later.
<https://www.drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q7>

I'm not Drupal's legal counsel, I'm just sitting on the sidelines
enjoying the popcorn, noting only my own personal opinion and how I
apply it to my own decisions.


> For an ideology that is suppose to remove restrictions on software it's
> surprising how confusing, restrictive and detrimental it can be.

It is indeed confusing because the ways code can co-mingle in memory are
not only vast but ever-changing, eluding a simple definition.

But whether it's "detrimental" is a matter of taste.  The spirit of the
GPL is very clearly about sharing, and doing so in way that ensures that
those who choose your work and distribute things made with it also honor
the sharing spirit you've expressed by choosing the GPL.

There is no requirement to use any particular software, and for those of
us who choose to use LiveCode our choices are made even broader by its
dual license - we can pick the one that best fits our intentions and
goals for the application at hand.

Like the old saying goes, there's no disputing taste.  Folks who like
the GPL tend to choose it, folks who prefer something else choose
something else.  I use a wide range of licenses for my own work,
depending on the goals for a given project.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
  ____________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]        http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
Peter Haworth wrote:

 > Maybe the best approach is to just do it and adopt the "better
 > to ask for forgiveness than permission" axiom"

I'm switching siglines here because this seems like a job for the
resident Community Manager. :)

Plugins play a key role in LiveCode, a role that will amplify many times
over when v8 is released.

There are benefits to the community to have dual-licensed libraries and
widgets, but IDE plugins are a special case worth considering.

It seems safe to say that it's in everyone's interest to have clarity on
the use of non-GPL components within the GPL-governed LiveCode Community
Edition, so I'll make getting clarification on this a priority in my
next meeting with the team.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  LiveCode Community Manager
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licensing

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by Peter Haworth
Peter Haworth wrote:

 > I don't mind opening up the source code but I'm not prepared
 > to allow it to be given to anyone a user chooses free of charge.
 > I understand that practically I can't stop that happening but I
 > want to at least expressly forbid it in the license agreement.

One of the many interesting things the GPL has given us is an
opportunity to consider redefinitions of value.

A proprietary license with a fee requirement certainly has some monetary
value, but how much?

After all, as you noted, those inclined to share it with their friends
will do so anyway, they'll just be either secretive about it or worse
not use it at all if they can't afford the fee.

Schools are one of many scenarios I consider with projects where the GPL
is an option.  Few schools have enough money, and many spend what little
they have in suboptimal ways, leaving little for even great software of
the sort you make.  So they just do without.

But we might ask:  what is currency?

Is it worth more to have a small amount of cash or a large amount of
gratitude (e.g., good press, donations, and even potential contracting
opportunities)?

I don't have an answer; I don't think there is a single answer for all
projects.

I just think it's interesting to ponder, esp. in the domain of developer
tools since developers are the only group of people who can make full
use of open source's most useful feature: the source.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
  ____________________________________________________________
  [hidden email]        http://www.FourthWorld.com

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
12