Commercial Indy License for HTML5

[Richmond]

On 20/07/14 17:07, Kevin Miller wrote:
> License agreements are not irrelevant. We do not have a single reason for
> commercial as it stands by any means. Most users are honest and are
> willing to pay for software providing doing so is fair, easy and
> convenient.
>
> In commercial desktop/mobile we have password protection that is not
> present in non-commercial. In commercial HTML5, we will have obfuscation
> that is not present in non-commercial. Both can be hacked in theory.
> Neither will be easy. Obfuscated source code does not convert well into
> human readable code no matter what you do.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin Miller ~ kevin at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
> LiveCode: Everyone can code
>
>

Thanks for that Kevin.

I do, however, have a few questions, and a few points:

Q1. If password protection of stacks in standalones is NOT the only 
difference

[beyond the very different licensing arrangements]

between the Commercial and the Community variants of Livecode could you 
be kind enough to
explain what the other differences are?

P1. I don't doubt that "most users are honest and are willing to pay for
software". However, once a piece of software becomes successful it
becomes a target for pirating and reverse engineering. The problem as 
always,
is not with "most users", it is with the one "nasty piece of stuff".

When walking across the hills, even if everybody bar 1 of one's party 
can put on
a pretty turn of speed, one MUST always wait for the slow one.

Q2. Can you please explain what 'obfuscation' means exactly.

P2. 'Obfuscated' code will still have to be executable.

Richmond.