Commercial Indy License for HTML5

[Mark Schonewille]

I don't agree, Peter. At least, not at this stage. If one makes a 
server-based app using PHP, one may keep the essential parts locked 
away, unreachable for prying eyes. While obfuscated JavaScript may be 
extremely difficult to unravel, one can still get a hold of the complete 
source code. A commercial license doesn't change this. Therefore, I see 
no incentive (yet) to buy a commercial license.

Additionally, one doesn't have to make the source code available 
immediately. If I put a web app on a server, it is still my app. I'm not 
releasing it. I'm just putting it on display. According to the GPL, 
source code needs to be released together with the compiled version. If 
I don't release the obfuscated version of a stack, i.e. I don't give it 
away and don't sell it for others to put on their servers, I don't need 
to release the source code.

If the obfuscation really works, putting an obfuscated version of a 
stack on a website means that others can't download and re-use the 
website without the source code. This is similar to a museum that 
creates a kiosk application, using it in-house only and not distributing 
copies, while a large audience has (possibly even paid) access to it. 
That means that only the developer has control of the files; the website 
is not released;there is no obligation to release the source code and 
there no incentive to buy a commercial license.

However, if obfuscation doesn't really work, putting a website on a 
server means anyone can download and re-use it, implying an obligation 
to provide the source code. Unfortunately, because one is unable to 
really protect the source code, the commercial license doesn't really 
add something. In both cases, strong obfuscation and weak obfuscation, 
there is no real incentive to buy a commercial HTML5 license.

It is only remotely related to the issue that is of my concern, but it 
was suggested that one may connect to a server, such as PHP or OnRev, 
specifically to keep essential parts of the code locked and hidden. 
First, if I have to do this, it means that the obfuscation is 
insufficient and again I might as well make the source available and I 
have no incentive to buy a commercial license. Second, having to use 
another tool greatly reduces that appeal of LC HTML5 and I then would 
rather use PHP and JQuery for almost all web apps.

The question remains: what could be a good incentive for a commercial 
developer to buy a commercial HTML5 license --besides supporting RunRev? 
This question can only be answered after more explanations from RunRev. 
RunRev needs to make explicit when it is necessary according to the 
license and when it is useful for the developer to buy a commercial license.

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

Installer Maker for LiveCode:
http://qery.us/468

Buy my new book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner" 
http://qery.us/3fi

LiveCode on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/runrev/

On 7/20/2014 00:09, Peter W A Wood wrote:
> Mark
>
> On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:15, Mark Schonewille <m.schonewille at economy-x-talk.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> The question is not whether it is possible to reverse engineer the code, but what is the incentive for commercial users to buy a license.
>
>
> The answer is the same as to the question "What is the incentive for commercial users to buy an existing LiveCode commercial licence if you don't want to sell LiveCode apps through Apple's app stores?"
>
> Regards
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>