Open source, closed source, and the value of code

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richard Gaskin
While doing some research on Xanadu and Memex this weekend I came across
this video of Bill Atkinson which seemed relevant to some of our recent
threads here about the value of code:

     "HyperCard was always an authoring environment, it
      was never just browsing. I didn't separate the guys
      who consume the information from they guys who create
      it. I was open source before open source was cool,
      because you could open up any HyperCard stack, any
      button, and look at what it does inside.

     "The primary requirement of the HyperTalk language was
      that it be readable by somebody that can look at it
      and see what was going on - 'Oh, on mouseUp, go to
      next card' - somebody could see that and maybe modify
      it a little bit.

     "Every HyperCard stack that you got had buttons and
      things in it and people learned from each other.  It
      was kind of an open source programming environment
      because people exchanged HyperCard stacks.  It was
      sort of Github before Github."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roT9DhDPI9k


As we explore the relative merits of different licenses here, both
proprietary and open source, I think it's helpful to remember how most
of us got started:  we got a stack from a friend or a user group CD or
from our local Wildcat BBS, we studied it, and we tweaked it.

Much of our learning came from experimenting with other people's stacks,
and the ones we found especially useful were often useful because we
could tailor them to fit our specific needs.

It isn't possible for any single code base to address all possible use
cases.  And it isn't practical to rewrite every code base from scratch
just to get the other 10% of functionality we need from it.

Imagine how small the Web might be today if not for open source, if
every Web server had to be written entirely from scratch every time
someone needed a small change, or pay tens of thousands of $$ to some
company and wait months for the enhancement to be released.

The Web is rich and diverse because most of it is free and open, from
the browser engines that render it to the router OSes that deliver it to
the databases that store it to the applications that serve it.

Consider the world's most popular programming languages, as ranked on
the TIOBE index:
http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index

Nearly every one of them is open source, and the few that aren't remain
on the list only for historical reasons no new tool could reproduce, and
they aren't growing.  With dev tools, growth is in open source.

There's still a vast range of opportunities for proprietary software for
end-users, but for tools and infrastructure the growth of open source is
both undeniable and unstoppable.

Better still, the relationship between the two is largely symbiotic:
much of the funding for FOSS projects comes from companies who earn at
least part of their revenue from closed source, and they're able to earn
that money by building their companies around tools and infrastructure
provided by the open source world.

Both proprietary and open source software are growing, rapidly, with no
sign of slowing in the foreseeable future.

And LiveCode is dual-licensed, able to play a valuable role for each.

When you're running a business that pays the bills from per-user
licenses, LC's Indy and other commercial licenses are among the smallest
expenses a company will have, even at the new rates.

But if you're not running a business, perhaps ask yourself: what is in
the code that's more valuable closed than open?

I've never written anything that any reasonably smart person couldn't
reproduce if they really wanted to.  The value of my products isn't in
the code alone, but in a complete solution that includes documentation,
support, and strong relationships with customers that put them in the
driver's seat of feature development.  Sometimes I write some nice code,
but if I'm being honest with myself I have to admit I'm not exactly
splitting the atom. :)

When code is shared many good things result.  The very least that
happens is that some young soul learns from it, and gets inspired to go
on to make great things.  After all, learning from other people's
HyperCard stacks is how most of us here got started.

For consultants, sharing code builds a reputation as a source of solutions.

For businesses, sharing code opens the door for enhancements from others
so your app can grow in capabilities beyond your own developer resources.

I met Ryan Sipes of the Mycroft AI project at the SoCal Linux Expo a few
weeks ago, and he says that what confirmed his hunch that taking his
product open source was a good idea what when he got his first pull
request just 20 minutes after putting it on Github:
<https://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/878287-mycroft-linuxs-own-ai/>


Open source isn't for everyone, and even when it is there are many
licenses for many goals.

But when the goal is sharing, GPL is a very good choice because it
ensures the chain of sharing can't be broken; no one can hoard the code,
everything distributed gets shared back to the community from which the
original work came so everyone can enhance it even further.

If you're building a business around per-user license fees, LC offers a
solution for that.

But if you're just having fun, sometimes the fun can be multiplied
through sharing.

All code that does something useful has value.  But the value is only
sometimes optimally exploited through sale, and other times through
community enhancement and knowledge sharing.

--
  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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richmond Mathewson-2
Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming
languages such as PASCAL and C++
are as FREE as the air. As long as a language remains Unfree it is
unlikely to be adopted widely.
While Runtime Revolution / Livecode have, until comparatively recently,
only had a closed source version of their programming environment, they
have almost always had a "cheap way in" in the form of a
lines-of-code-limited version, or a stacks-only-version; and had they
not they wouldn't have got as far as they did before they released their
open source version.

At the moment I cannot entirely understand what the 'problem' is. There
is a FREE version of Livecode
which to all intents and purposes is a very large subset of an Unfree
version.  The FREE version is so
powerful that any "hobbyist" (a very, very fuzzy category if ever there
was: a 'hobbyist' is a bit like the boy who buys a small box of Lego
bits . . .) should be fully satisfied.

Richmond.

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Wprothero
Richmond:
I also find it hard to appreciate the seriousness of the problem. Seems like much ado about very little.
Best,
Bill

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, RM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming languages such as PASCAL and C++
> are as FREE as the air. As long as a language remains Unfree it is unlikely to be adopted widely.
> While Runtime Revolution / Livecode have, until comparatively recently, only had a closed source version of their programming environment, they have almost always had a "cheap way in" in the form of a lines-of-code-limited version, or a stacks-only-version; and had they not they wouldn't have got as far as they did before they released their open source version.
>
> At the moment I cannot entirely understand what the 'problem' is. There is a FREE version of Livecode
> which to all intents and purposes is a very large subset of an Unfree version.  The FREE version is so
> powerful that any "hobbyist" (a very, very fuzzy category if ever there was: a 'hobbyist' is a bit like the boy who buys a small box of Lego bits . . .) should be fully satisfied.
>
> Richmond.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Http://es.earthednet.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann
This post was updated on .
hi folks, what is this fuss about?

First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source path on all usage is not true. There was a command to protect a stack ("protect" of course!) . And some interesting pieces of software were sold as protected stacks.

And it is precisely that positioning which is about to be abandoned by livecode and why i think it's going backwards (with LESS) rather than going forward (with MORE).

[[ ??? : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same way?? How do they do? Is Squeak one of them?]]

What the fuss is NOT :
1) I never questioned the Open Source version of Livecode. it's fantastic and needed. I'm like lots of us here a believer in the power of the crowd to step up and built "common tools" together. I repeat to built tools. And some shared apps.

2) I never questioned the Commercial version. Again it's great and helps going forward. Whatever the price of the commercial version, they 'll do their best.

The fuss is on two levels : one practical, the other more on the principles. Both can have a serious impact on live code in the future.

A) In practice :: we're going to be missing an intermediate tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in Hypercard.

Most reactions are : if it is to play around just don't bother and distribute as open sourced. Ok guys.
But things are not just that "idealistically" simple. Sometimes you just do not know yet. And wish to try out something. Because some people just do not know everything in advance.

B) On a deeper level, something sounds wrong to me with OSS license, which I had not identified initially. The border line between the OOS TOOL and the OSS USAGES seems to have been blured/erased, thus challenging our whole copyright rules.

TEST :
-- would you find it "ok" that everything you write with your open sourced word processor be absolutely open sourced? Whatever you write? even if it is your next brilliant patent?
-- same question for the various open sourced "tools" that allow to edit pictures, drawings, videos and so on.

-- The best parallel perhaps is say you use wordPress open sourced blog system.
Now imagine that in their condition, was stated that the moment you press the "publish" button,
all your work put online is open sourced, and that you had no copyright protection on everything published (again direct conflict with brand names and logos..)
Well.. I wonder, if wordPress would have had such a success.

So far I understand, using livecode OSS and distributing a stack, say an education stack with lots of illustrations etc.. and videos.. would fall under that case. All open sourced.

The fuss about is that in the present state of the license applicable to open sourced livecode,
whatever you "write" with live code, if "given" "shared" to anybody else, then becomes open sourced.
no choice.

>>> THe frontier between the tool itself (its modules etc) and the "day to day" work you can produce with it have been blurred. Fine if that is what was really wanted!  But did we really all mean that???

Actually it would be interesting to precise what rights get open sourced in a stack :
-- do all the media incorporated in a stack become open sourced when shared?
-- what about the copyright on the layout of the application ?
-- what about the writing of the documentation included?
-- what about the logo of the company/individual  included?
-- what about the trade marks eventually? are there reserves for that?

What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright protection for some elements.
There would be a kind of conflict there.

That is why, I thought it would not be a bad idea to keep a door opened for some protection on some cases even for individuals indies etc. that will not pay 999$ every year.

And if you think these question over copyrights and so on are just a do about nothing, for most of us it is, clearly, but for Disney who managed to extend the copyright period by another 25 years and more in effect it is vital. A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these rights. And we shall soon have MICRO-PAYMENT that will revive all that.

Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same way?? How do they do?

best to all,
Robert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richard Gaskin
Robert, I appreciate your thorough thoughts on this.  You covered a lot
of ground, and you seem to have your mind well made up on open source
license options so I won't try to convince you of anything here, just
providing some links and background info for others who may share
questions along these lines:


 > First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source
 > path on all usage is not true.

I don't think anyone was claiming that.  HyperCard was very clearly
released under proprietary license with specific terms and conditions.

Bill Atkinson's commented I quoted seemed more to reflect a good
appreciate for open process and for sharing in general, but in that
video he expressed so opinions about GPL or any other open source
license specifically.


 > What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
 > tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
 > reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
 > Hypercard.

Originally HyperCard was given away for free with every Mac.

Indeed, once it became a product under Claris it proved difficult for it
to sustain itself economically.

FWIW, LC has experimented with a wide range of price points over the
years, including many that match price points suggested in recent
related threads here.  If they had produced the sort of results hoped
for we wouldn't be having this conversation today.



 > And on a deeper level, please, do pay attention that it is our whole
 > copyright system which is being thus challenged.
 > -- would you find it "ok" that everything you write with your open
 > sourced
 > word processor be absolutely open sourced? Whatever you write? even
 > if it is your next brilliant patent?
 > -- same question for the various open sourced "tools" that allow to
 > edit pictures, drawings, videos and so on.

According to the authors of the GPL, copyright of data output by a
program is different and separate from copyright of code:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOutput>



 > The fuss about is that in the present state of the license applicable
 > to open sourced livecode, whatever you "write" with live code, if
 > "given" "shared" to anybody else, then becomes open sourced.

That is a distinguishing feature of the GPL and other related licenses.
  And as Matt pointed out earlier this morning, there are many other
open source licenses as well, such as the MIT/X11 license he's using,
which differ in terms of downstream responsibilities.

Matt chose to obtain an Indy license so he can use MIT/X11 for the work
he produces from it.

Choosing the GPL-governed Community Edition means choosing GPL.

We have many options to choose from, so only those who choose the
GPL-governed edition are obliged to the terms they've chosen.



 > Actually it would be interesting to precise what rights get open
 > sourced in a stack :
 > -- do all the media incorporated in a stack become open sourced when
 > shared?
 > -- what about the copyright on the layout of the application ?
 > -- what about the writing of the documentation included?
 > -- what about the logo of the company/individual  included?
 > -- what about the trade marks eventually?

Trademarks are very different from copyright.  They require separate
filing, and have different enforcement requirements as well.

Regarding copyright of media incidental to a work, for the distinction
between code and output see the GPL FAQ link above.


 > What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright
 > protection for some elements.
 > There would be a kind of conflict there.

If those elements are code there may be a conflict, or not, if the
license of those elements allows it and is compatible with the GPL.

There are several questions in the FAQ I linked to above which cover a
wide range of circumstances relating to such circumstances.


 > And if you think these question over copyrights and so on are just
 > a do about nothing, for most of us it is, clearly, but for Disney who
 > managed to extend the copyright period by another 25 years and more
 > in effect it is vital.

It is true that the US government has allowed a single corporate to
revise its copyright law.  Whether allowing such a practice is useful
for the general public has been the subject of much debate both in the
US and abroad, and is - thankfully - beyond the scope of this list. :)


 > A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
 > rights.

Yes, the "founding fathers" of the United States drafted the
Constitution with explicit provisions for providing for protection of
copyrights because they believed intellectual property was valuable.

The Berne Convention which makes the GPL and all other distribution
agreements possible has been signed by more than two-thirds of the
world's nations.

Protecting copyright is generally considered valuable so that creators
of original works have the right to choose the terms of the distribution
of those works.  Whether they choose an open source license or a
proprietary one is up to them.


 > Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open
 > sourced and that impose on all programs written with it to be open
 > sourced same way??

Using the TIOBE index ( <http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index>) as a guide,
we can look at several there:

Java: mixed somewhat like LC, with a proprietary version and a
     GPL-governed OpenJDK.

C, C++: my understanding is these are open specifications; tools
     implementing those specifications vary, but among the most
     popular compilers is GCC, the Gnu C Compiler from the same
     folks who wrote the GPL.

Python, PHP:  both open source, but under their own unique terms.
     Their licenses are generally considered more "permissive" than
     GPL in that they have no "copyleft" provisions (downstream
     requirements for adhering to the same level of openness they
     offer), but it's worth noting that the Wordpress, Drupal, and
     Joomla projects are among the world's most popular systems
     built on PHP and all three explicitly define all themes,
     modules, and other add-ons as "derivative works" per the GPL
     and require GPL for such works:
     <https://www.drupal.org/about/licensing>

VB.net: Historically proprietary, with a subset recently release as
     open source under MIT license.

Delphi: Proprietary, though a GPL-governed variant is available
     through the Lazarus project.

Ruby:  Open source under BDSL

Swift: Mostly open source now (language only, I don't believe any of
     the Cocoa framework needed for effective use of it on iOS is
     included in that) under Apache v2 license.

R:  Dual-licensed under MIT or GPLv2

Groovy: Like most projects stewarded under Apache, uses Apache v2

Scratch: dual-licensed under MIT or GPLv2.

There are a lot more listed there, too many to cover here but each has
its own license info that can be found if interested.

For a broad view of FOSS license adoption this chart has a breakdown
showing license popularity by project count:
<http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2014/11/14/open-source-licenses/>

While MIT and Apache are growing in popularity, GPL's family of licenses
(v2, v3, AGPL and LGPL) continue to dominate.

--
  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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

RogGuay
In reply to this post by Robert Mann
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.

Cheers,

Roger


> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Robert Mann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
> tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
> reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
> Hypercard.
>

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richmond Mathewson-2


On 1.03.2016 00:16, Roger Guay wrote:
> I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger
>
That, now, makes sense. A sort of halfway house.

There was (amidst the plethora of purchasing plans that have come and
gone) a way to
have a month's licence; so one could develop one's stack using the
Community version
and then purchase a month's worht of commercial to hive off protected
standalones; whether that is still available I just don't know having
stuck with the Community version right from when it was released.

Richmond.

>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Robert Mann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
>> tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
>> reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
>> Hypercard.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Matt Maier
In reply to this post by Robert Mann
[disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice]

I sympathize with your confusion. There is inherent confusion around the
differences between "sharing" and "free/open source." In the former case,
it's just something people do. In the latter case, it is a legal standard.

Livecode Community uses the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
This is important primarily because your standalones include the Livecode
engine. Livecode owns the copyright on the engine because their programmers
wrote it and assigned their copyright to the corporation. Leaving it at
that means that nobody else has any right to anything with regards to the
Livecode engine. In order to facilitate things like community, and
learning, and customer development, Livecode is giving you (us) a license
to use the engine provided certain conditions are followed. In this case,
the GPL is a viral license in that you are only given a license to use the
code if the binary you produce with it also uses the GPL (or compatible)
license. Those are the terms under which Livecode is comfortable allowing
you to use their intellectual property.

It's worth mentioning that the language itself doesn't work the same way.
If you open up a text editor, and write down words which the Livecode
engine might happen to understand, then you still own the full copyright on
those words. You can do anything you want with them. So the copyright on
the source of a script-only stack belongs to you. If you compile it into
the standalone then it must be licensed GPL.

That means there's a gray area around something like distributing a
Livecode-compiled binary under the GPL (source must be provided) and also
providing one or more encrypted scripts which that application can decrypt
and access if it needs to. As I understand it, the GPL blocks distribution
of a GPL-licensed executable that *requires* closed-source libraries to
run, but does allow the copyright holder to write in a specific exception
if they want to. The gray area refers to an optional library that *enhances*
(like a plug-in) the GPL-licensed application. I think that is merely
discouraged, but not actually blocked.

So it might be worth asking Livecode if they'd be willing to add an
exception to their GPL license allowing "hobbyists" to distribute a
closed-source library that is not compiled into the GPL-licensed
standalone. That would allow "hobbyists" to keep some of their code secret.
Maybe Livecode could even charge a different amount for that license.

[Disclaimer: Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Robert Mann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> hi folks, what is this fuss about?
>
> First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source path on
> all usage is not true. There was a command to protect a stack ("protect" of
> course!) . And some interesting pieces of software were sold as protected
> stacks.
>
> And it is precisely that positioning which is about to be abandoned by
> livecode and why i think it's going backwards (with LESS) rather than going
> forward (with MORE).
>
> What the fuss is NOT :
> 1) I never questioned the Open Source version of Livecode. it's fantastic
> and needed.
> 2) I never questioned the Commercial version. Again it's great and helps
> going forward.
>
> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
> tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
> reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
> Hypercard.
>
> Now most reactions are : if it is to play around just don't bother and
> distribute as open sourced. Ok guys.
> But things are not just that "idealistically" simple. Sometimes you just do
> not know yet. And wish to try out something. Because some people just do
> not
> know everything in advance.
>
> And on a deeper level, please, do pay attention that it is our whole
> copyright system which is being thus challenged.
> -- would you find it "ok" that everything you write with your open sourced
> word processor be absolutely open sourced? Whatever you write? even if it
> is
> your next brilliant patent?
> -- same question for the various open sourced "tools" that allow to edit
> pictures, drawings, videos and so on.
>
> The fuss about is that in the present state of the license applicable to
> open sourced livecode,
> whatever you "write" with live code, if "given" "shared" to anybody else,
> then becomes open sourced.
> THe frontier between the tool itself (its modules etc) and the "day to day"
> work you can produce with it have been blurred. Fine if that is what was
> really wanted!  But did we really all mean that???
>
> Actually it would be interesting to precise what rights get open sourced in
> a stack :
> -- do all the media incorporated in a stack become open sourced when
> shared?
> -- what about the copyright on the layout of the application ?
> -- what about the writing of the documentation included?
> -- what about the logo of the company/individual  included?
> -- what about the trade marks eventually?
>
> What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright protection
> for some elements.
> There would be a kind of conflict there.
>
> That is why, I thought it would not be a bad idea to keep a door opened for
> some protection on some cases even for individuals indies etc. that will
> not
> pay 999$ every year.
>
> And if you think these question over copyrights and so on are just a do
> about nothing, for most of us it is, clearly, but for Disney who managed to
> extend the copyright period by another 25 years and more in effect it is
> vital. A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
> rights.
>
> Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced
> and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same
> way??
>
> best to all,
> Robert
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701662.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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
>
_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Monte Goulding-2
In reply to this post by Richmond Mathewson-2
I believe the monthly subscription was dropped at the time of the open source release for exactly those reasons. Funnily enough LiveCode developers need to pay the bills too so need to avoid enabling people to game the system. One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 9:25 AM, RM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There was (amidst the plethora of purchasing plans that have come and gone) a way to
> have a month's licence; so one could develop one's stack using the Community version
> and then purchase a month's worht of commercial to hive off protected standalones; whether that is still available I just don't know having stuck with the Community version right from when it was released.

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

RogGuay
Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in your estimate?

Roger


> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Monte Goulding <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community.

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Monte Goulding-2
Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you could publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something to take up with Apple.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:39 AM, Roger Guay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in your estimate?

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

[-hh]
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin
>>> Monte G. wrote:
>>> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful
>>> of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community.

>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Roger G. wrote:
>> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and
>> IOS in your estimate? Roger

> Monte G. wrote:
> Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you
> could publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something
> to take up with Apple.
> Sent from my iPhone

Monte, Roger's question is clear. Why don't you answer it?
And show us the the data that's the base of your estimate?

Hermann

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

[-hh]
In reply to this post by Richard Gaskin
My email wasn't displayed, perhaps because a suspected iPhone?
No, No - I didn't sent this from anybody's iPhone ;-)

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

RogGuay
In reply to this post by Monte Goulding-2
Monty,

I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC. I’ll get along with whatever LC brings to my future. But you know better than I, that Apple is not going to be moved. So why not make lemonade out of this lemon: Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?

Roger


> On Feb 29, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Monte Goulding <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you could publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something to take up with Apple.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:39 AM, Roger Guay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in your estimate?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Monte Goulding-2
In reply to this post by [-hh]

What estimate? I did say "might" as I really have no idea what y'all can afford :-)


Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:10 PM, [-hh] <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Monte, Roger's question is clear. Why don't you answer it?
> And show us the the data that's the base of your estimate?

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Monte Goulding-2
In reply to this post by RogGuay

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?


I guess it could hurt everyone that depends on the platform if it undercut the Indy license too much. One thing we know for sure is that with the Indy price rise being staged effectively over a couple of years since the first rise that the company is being more than fair with its current user base by giving them the opportunity to lock in current prices for the long term.

Whether as the price of Indy rises a space is created for some kind of Indy Lite remains to be seen. However, I might suggest it would be difficult to find the right mix of features for it… Should it have no code protection but still allow proprietary licenses? Perhaps it should be royalty based or only allow free apps? Maybe it should have splash screens on standalones? Maybe individual platform licenses? What about a set fee per platform per standalone build? Maybe everything that can be easily removed from LC could be an addon at extra cost (database, xml, widgets etc)?

So many options that even if the company had something in this space it still won’t meet everyones needs.

Cheers

Monte
_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Matt Maier
Maybe they could sell one-time exceptions. Like, give Livecode $100 and you
can compile one version of one app closed source. So many options.

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Monte Goulding <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for
> LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?
>
>
> I guess it could hurt everyone that depends on the platform if it undercut
> the Indy license too much. One thing we know for sure is that with the Indy
> price rise being staged effectively over a couple of years since the first
> rise that the company is being more than fair with its current user base by
> giving them the opportunity to lock in current prices for the long term.
>
> Whether as the price of Indy rises a space is created for some kind of
> Indy Lite remains to be seen. However, I might suggest it would be
> difficult to find the right mix of features for it… Should it have no code
> protection but still allow proprietary licenses? Perhaps it should be
> royalty based or only allow free apps? Maybe it should have splash screens
> on standalones? Maybe individual platform licenses? What about a set fee
> per platform per standalone build? Maybe everything that can be easily
> removed from LC could be an addon at extra cost (database, xml, widgets
> etc)?
>
> So many options that even if the company had something in this space it
> still won’t meet everyones needs.
>
> Cheers
>
> Monte
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by RogGuay
On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream
> for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?

Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides they're a
hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little farther. What
restrictions would you (anyone) put on a "hobbyist" license to
differentiate it from the regular Indy license? It would have to prevent
people from gaming the system.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

RogGuay
Well, what I suggested a few posts back was a license for non-profits and give-away apps. But, I completely understand if that turns out to be difficult to police. I’m only trying to help here!

Roger



> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:45 PM, J. Landman Gay <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
>> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream
>> for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?
>
> Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides they're a hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little farther. What restrictions would you (anyone) put on a "hobbyist" license to differentiate it from the regular Indy license? It would have to prevent people from gaming the system.
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.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

_______________________________________________
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: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

J. Landman Gay
I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism. I was
just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would
include. I guess I did miss your original suggestion. I also wonder how
a hobbyist license should be enforced, or if it should just be an honor
system.


On 2/29/2016 8:52 PM, Roger Guay wrote:

> Well, what I suggested a few posts back was a license for non-profits
> and give-away apps. But, I completely understand if that turns out to
> be difficult to police. I’m only trying to help here!
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:45 PM, J. Landman Gay
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
>>> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue
>>> stream for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?
>>
>> Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides
>> they're a hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little
>> farther. What restrictions would you (anyone) put on a "hobbyist"
>> license to differentiate it from the regular Indy license? It would
>> have to prevent people from gaming the system.
>>

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.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
12345