Commercial Indy License for HTML5

[Brahmanathswami]

Kevin Miller wrote:
> given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able
> to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between
> obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which
> requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with
> readable, editable and redistributable code.
Understood.

That does help.. .thanks Kevin.

  So if we create an app under GPL, then we just need a URL where anyone 
can get source.

  I remember years ago reading a white paper from Adobe on the JS that 
was being exported from GoLive, in which they stated "be aware that the 
level of abstraction of the Javascript exported by GoLive is such that 
it will in all likelihood be virtually incomprehensible...." or 
something along those lines. I presume were trying to forestall any 
complaints from developers who thought they could work in WSIWIG and 
then subsequently  tweak/customize the JS after it was dumped from GoLive.

As a non-profit, edu org we really have no interest in doing any closed 
source web apps, and the only reason I do own and continue to own a  
LiveCode commercial license is because of Apple's policies for getting 
into their store.  Ergo the "perk" to get an Indy commercial HTML5 
license is not much of one for us here . This I can see might be 
important for other developers though. Especially if you are doing apps 
for other clients. (never a case for us)

Maybe Heather can find some other perks for us that I can use to 
convince the purse holders here contribute to the campaign. (I wrote to 
her already)