Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

[Richmond]

> Apologies if this has already been discussed but I have a licensing question
>
> Fast forward a few months, the code base is open source and the free
> version of LC is available.  Someone adds a feature to to the open source
> (not me, I have no C++ knowledge).  People using the free
> version obviously have access to it.
>
> Does RunRev have access to the code for that feature to include in the
> commercial version of Livecode?  If so, do they have an obligation to
> compensate the original author of the code?
>
> Pete
> lcSQL Software <http://www.lcsql.com>
>
>

As far as I understand things, this is an "old trick", and not a bad one,
but not done out of rampaging altruism by RunRev . . .

. . . and, as I am highly suspicious of when anybody starts protesting
their altruistic intentions (which, luckily, RunRev haven't degraded 
themselves
to do), that doesn't fuss me in the slightest . . .

As far as I understand thing, RunRev may be feeling that:

1. Not enough people are buying their product.

2. Not enough people are finding out about their product.

Of course these are 2 sides of the same coin.

Now, by producing a dual-licensing situation lots more people are going 
to hear about Livecode ( I hope so, otherwise my
smallish contribution will be wasted), and, RunRev hopes, more people 
will feel inclined to buy the commercial variant.

Now, as far as I understand Open Source stuff, RunRev would be quite 
within their rights to use code from the
open source code stream of Livecode in their commercial stream as long 
as they continue to give access to the
open source components rolled into their commercial version.

This is NOT an original idea: c.f. WINE and CodeWeavers : 
http://wiki.winehq.org/CodeWeavers

And the StarOffice / OpenOfficeOrg situation : 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_office

As ALL code that is developed for an Open Source project is OPEN I don't 
think a commercial firm is obliged to recompense
anyone as long as they adhere to the GNU License (or whatever thing they 
use) as far as they go with the Open Source
bits they roll into their commercial variant.

I would be MOST SURPRISED if RunRev did not intend to "cherry pick" what 
they feel are the best bits of Open Source code contributed
towards the FREE Livecode version; and, frankly, they would be foolish 
not to. After all, I have the feeling that the amount they are trying
to raise via the Kickstarter thing will not really be sufficient for 
complete funding of what they intend; and, quite apart from anything else,
many of their developers will have to be "away" from their commercial 
desks for a certain amount of time each week to work on the
Open Source variant. Now that has to be repaid in some sense; and if how 
RunRev does that is by cherry-picking, thet seems perfectly reasonable.

I would suppose that this is a very large part of the reasoning behind 
releasing an Open Source version.

I would not expect anything more of RunRev than I would expect of 
myself; and you can be 100% sure I have not pledged my bit
out of unalloyed altruism: A very large part of my livelihood comes 
through the fact that my computers in my EFL school feature
programs made with Livecode, and while I make a living wage from my 
school I am highly unlikely to be able to afford a commercial
version of Livecode in the foreseeable future. My Devawriter Pro works 
as it it (i.e. with RR/LC 4.5), and that is all jolly fine; but
my next trick may demand something more up to date.

I really hope the Kickstart goal is reached (although I do think a month 
is insufficient time) as I believe everybody stands to gain from this.

Richmond Mathewson.