Subject - LiveCode - I'm not a very happy Bunny

[Richmond Mathewson]

I thought the theory was that getting lots of people to use the open 
source version would lead
to all sorts of benefits to LiveCode:

1. A certain proportion of O.S. users would contribute with bug reports 
and so on.

2. A certain proportion of O.S. users would, in due course, pay for a 
commercial licence when they
     felt a need to protect their code from prying eyes.

However, if the "road to the isles" (how to get hold of the O.S. 
version) is hidden away down the bottom of
LiveCode's website's landing page, instead of being "right there", the 
chances of that uptake seems
minimal.

I do get the feeling that LiveCode have an ambivalent view to their 
decision to release an O.S. version;
part of which may be that points #1 and #2 have not happened with such a 
whoosh as perhaps they
had hoped. But this is a circular situation which, I believe, might get 
untangled if LiveCode shouted louder, and all and everywhere, about 
their O.S. version, as well as presenting one of those easy-to-ken charts
showing the differences between the 3 versions of LiveCode they produce 
that is easily accessible to
people who find their way (and part of the problem in "find their way" 
rather than
"have it rammed down their throats") to LiveCode's website.

I have made most of my teaching resources and sample stacks available to 
people here:

http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/door

nobody seems really interested, because they are all stuck on C++, 
Python and VB.Net. Could that
be because, if they get to the LiveCode page the first thing they see is 
an "expensive" piece of
software?

This is, to put things mildly, "an awful pity".

Richmond.

On 1/7/17 12:17 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode wrote:
> gotta say....... looking at livecode.com it  is very clear that livecode is
> nearly hoping that people won't notice that there is an open source version
> and buy a license because they didn't know any better.
>
> shady....shady...... almost understandable, but why go open source if you
> gonna pretend like you aren't?
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Keith Martin <thatkeith at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Jan 2017, at 14:11, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>>
>> What this message should tell the people on the mother-ship is that they
>>> need to shout a bit louder
>>> about the Open Source version
>>>
>> Amen! The FOSS, Community edition is a great thing, and it's
>>
>> It'd also be great if the mother ship would also consider, one day, a more
>> inexpensive way to step up to the level where App Store submission is
>> possible, perhaps as a short-term (say, 1 month?) window, bundled with
>> advice for efficient App Store submission? Perhaps something similar for
>> HTML5 publication in the future? LC is wonderful, but it is feeling more
>> and more like a product with a 'keep out, professionals only' label on the
>> virtual box... :-/
>>
>> Me, I'd SO glad I got Indy in time to keep annual cost just about
>> affordable. I make peanuts (at most!) from what I build, but that's not the
>> point for me; it's just too much fun not to be part of the LC builder
>> community. I did once hope HTML5 would be available as part of that, but
>> sadly it's separate. :(
>>
>> k
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Keith Martin
>> Senior Lecturer, LCC (University of the Arts London)
>> Technical Editor, MacUser magazine (1997-2015)
>> http://PanoramaPhotographer.com
>> http://thatkeith.com
>> +44 (0)7909541365
>>
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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