HTML5: mixed signals

[hh]

*** The following is how I judge this, not based on any 'official document'. ***

Depends a little bit upon what you are doing. The javascript part of the calling
web page is always accessible, no matter the license. So, important parts that
you have as javascript in the standalone's webpage are protected by the license
you select for that, e.g. an MIT-license.

With an Indy version you can make it more difficult (but *not* disable) to
download the standalone.zip, i.e. avoid the download-source-link.

*** But with an HTML5 license only you can password protect the source code (your
scripts) of the standalone. That's the essential effect of the HTML5-license ***

For example I have one script-protected HTML5 standalone: "EasyCrop"
( = selecting by a BezierCurve tool, available on hh.on-rev.com/html5/ )
Just try to hack it ...
All others there have accessible scripts, but you have first to know how to
download the <standalone>.zip that contains the source (= the "Indy-effect").

With the community version you are obliged to have a download-source-link (it's
generated at bottom right of the standalone canvas) and your scripts are *not*
password-protected.

> Matthias wrote:
> No, that means, that you have to release your source code to the public when using the
> community version, while you don´t have to do it when you have a commercial license.
> Richmondwrote:
> > Well, that is reasonably obvious . . . 
> > Presumably (?) that means that HTML5 things hived-off the Community version of LiveCode
> > are in readable Java-script and may be opened  and edited as such, 
> > while the version of HTML5 available for $299/year hives-off protected code? 
> > 
> > Heather wrote: 
> >> Um. Like every other platform for LiveCode, there is an open source Community version
> >> of HTML5. Not seeing the problem here? You pay for commercial, closed source. You use
> >> Community free and share your code. 
> >>> Richmond Mathewson wrote: 
> >>> I just recieved an e-mail from LiveCode central offering me a licence for HTML5 
> >>> for $299/year. 
> >>> And that seems 'normal' considering my Indy licence does NOT include a licence for HTML5. 
> >>> BUT: the Community version allowed me to build an HTML5 thing. 
> >>> That also seems a bit arsy-versy.