Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Richmond]

Or target those people who have jail-broken their iPads . . .

Richmond.

On 21.07.2016 00:54, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
>
> On 20/07/2016 20:53, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote:
>> Kay C Lan wrote:
>>
>> " Fortunately one of the parents is extremely supportive and is happy
>> to pony up for an LC Indy License. Is it kosher that this app, built
>> by multiple people using Community, is now licensed by a single Indy
>> holder? Can further game refinement be done by the gang using
>> Community?"
>>
>> I have this same question..
>>
>> @ Peter
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ide.revolution.user/223575
>>
>> doesn't really answer the above.
>
> Well, I hope the following is sufficiently unambiguous.
>
>>
>> i) a product that is pushed to the Apple app store under Indy via 1
>> user on the team
>
> This is exactly what LiveCode Indy is intended for.
>
>> ii) that includes code created by the team, many of whom are fall in
>> the categories of
>>
>> volunteers |non-profit staffers | students et all such other
>> "community" users
>>
>> put another way… to say the obvious… the use case is "all GPL top to
>> bottom," with only Apple's rules forcing a closed source build for a
>> single distribution channel context.
>
> - If the app is open source, this definitely violates either the Apple 
> store agreement or the LiveCode Community copyright license (GPLv3).
>
> - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode 
> Indy end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode 
> Community copyright license.
>
> If you are doing this, stop doing so immediately and get a Business 
> license seat for each person involved in developing your app.
>
> Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free 
> Software.  If you want to make Free Software apps for mobile devices, 
> target Android.
>
>                                         Peter
>