license issues (was mystery exception)

Heather Williams heather at
Thu Mar 13 10:18:01 EST 2003

> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:08:01 +0100
> To: use-revolution at
> From: Robert Brenstein <rjb at>
> Subject: Re: license issues (was mystery exception)
> Reply-To: use-revolution at
>> If all you wanted to do was give away a 12-year effort in crafting a highly
>> optimized scripting engine by just slapping a five-minute UI on it, you'd
>> have to work a litte harder than that.
>> Admittedly I'm having a tough time thinking of a commercially viable
>> opportunity for an app that truly needs dynamic scripting and doesn't
>> compete with Rev....
> I don't really want to prolong this thread but you guys seem to think
> that I would want to produce a generic application that allows to run
> any transcript code user wants, an evil program that will run Rev to
> bankrupcy.

Easy there. I don't think anyone thinks this of you. They've merely been
explaining the reasoning behind the way the licensing works. After all, it
would actually only take one ill intentioned or unscrupulous person to
achieve this, if we didn't have some sort of restriction to prevent it.


> Furthermore, the starting point of this thread was that
> MC/Revolution's license explicitely allows me to produce and
> distribute standalones without any further royalties.
>   Using Revolution, you can deliver powerful, fully-featured
>   applications on all major platforms - quickly, easily, and
>   royalty-free.

Correct. It does. A standalone in Rev has the restriction that it cannot be
used for full programming and development.

> Unfortunately, the engine imposes the limit on the do length in those
> -- the fact of which is not clearly stated up front. This is also
> evidenced by a number of people admitting the surprise when they
> found it out the hard way, although in their cases it was not a
> showstopper. This discussion should be not as much about my shareware
> program ruining 12-year effort but about false/misleading advertising.

Ok, here you have a point. This issue should not come as a surprise to
established users, and I will see what can be done to clarify our terms,
conditions and licensing text on the website and in the docs. Part of the
problem here is that many people do not read long, boring, licensing text.


> But then what stops users from running 10 lines at a time in a loop
> rather than simple "do me"? The fact is that MC and Rev folks do not
> mind people using the limited stack for fairly complex stuff, and
> they explicitely allow us to use starter kit to produce and
> distribute commercial applications. There are publically available
> tips and tricks how to do that.
Yes, but it is harder, slower, and in time serious developers prefer to buy
a license. It works pretty well. Those that it truly is not worthwhile for
to buy a license can still work in the starter kit.

> It is just sad that at the same time they do not provide means of
> overcoming this do restriction for legitimate uses in standalone
> applications (even if this was on case by case basis).

Try asking us. You never know, we might be able to come to some arrangement.



> Robert

Heather Williams <heather at> <>
Runtime Revolution Ltd.
Tel: +44 (0) 131 7184333 Fax: +44 (0)1639 830707
Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought

More information about the use-livecode mailing list