Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami]

Hmm. still a lot of gray edges here.

but first  Peter wrote:

"    - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode 
    Indy end user license agreement"

?

https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/

has a check mark next to "Protect your source code"

What are we missing there?

---------

Re collaboration teams + making apps that go to Apple Store:

Please don't take this as argumentative… imagine we are sitting in peaceful garden just "talking story" as we say in Hawaii for about the long term growth of LiveCode… a mutually agreed upon objective:

The  issue must still be incredibly dense or fairly intelligent people like Kay and myself would not still be asking these questions

Apple does allow you to put up your apps up for free. ergo, the statement

 "Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free Software.  "

?? there are 10's of thousands of free apps in the app store. How is that an "unfertile pasture?"

If your app has zero In-App purchases… it is really, really free.

 makes no sense … unless:

there is a difference between "Free Software" and "Free App."  

the concept of "business license"  is also mute, as there is zero revenue involved… nothing, zilch… the entire "enterprise runs in the red, by design… even the terms of the Indy license from this perspective are "non-sensical"

"For small businesses and startups with annual revenues up to $500K"   (as stated on your web site)

when a non-profit aka "class room full of students-- group of volunteers" obviously makes no money at all.

By allowing at least one parent to pony up for an Indy license… doesn’t that help LiveCode Company by $699.00?  Assuming the app distributed for free the question of "business" doesn't enter at any level. X number of those students will grow up, get inspired and once they have some earning power, by their own Indy license… wouldn't that be a good thing? 

I'm being an advocate here on Kay's behalf, because in fact all the people on our team but one, have an Indy license… so it's not as if I am "cheating" -- LiveCode is doing just fine with respect to our team…

 When I created  the Gurudeva.app, which I built myself, top to bottom with help from another developer who had an indy license. If I had a third developer with an Indy license… that's $699 X 3 = $2,100 revenue for LiveCode enterprise… even more than the business license. So obviously Edinborough Mother Ship can't be complaining if 2-10 different Indy developer's collaborate on a single app. 

But for the poor teacher: Your clarification answer's Kay's question with a big  "NO"  So her classroom  cannot generate code as a team and push it using a single Indy license for Apple. ergo LiveCode as a company is saying to them "You have to use some other tools for what you want to do… don't use LiveCode."   And there are lots of them out there now. HTML 5 IDE's and Cloud platforms are growing rapidly. It would be a simple matter for the teacher to say "Sorry guys, we can use LiveCode, because of Apple's policies, let's use XYZ instead." 

I don't see how that is a useful strategy. Sad…  Just because of Apple's policy you want me (or any indy owner) to stop being advocates of LiveCode? 

I have turned on quite a few new users to LC this past year since community came out… So if one of them sends me a really super ugly prototype stack with no code other than "go next, go previous"  but their UX is brilliant… you're saying I can't clone a card from the stack, refine the UI and revise it for an app that we might push to the Apple store?  Again, I don't mean to be argumentative… my interest is for LiveCode's long term growth potential. 

Also if the "widgets" text stacks/ LCB thing thing takes off, there could be (hopefully!) thousands of "plug-ins" any number of which may have been created, tested run from a community version, that an Indy author might add to his app that goes into the Apple store.  How does that work? 

Again, not being critical/argumentative at all, just feeling Apple Thorn in the side and wondering if LiveCode's long term interests are best served by allowing Apple's rules become the ruling mandate for LiveCode spreading… the recent survey of popular language on GitHub… Livecode doesn't even appear.  To make LiveCode as ubiquitous as Javascript (Kevin's declared goal some years back in an interview, of seeing it as one of the top 10 languages used in the world…

 I don't think we want teachers in any context telling students "We can't use it because of Apples rules" 


BR
 

On 7/20/16, 11:54 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Peter TB Brett" <use-livecode-bounces at lists.runrev.com on behalf of peter.brett at livecode.com> 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