LiveCode apps in the Ubuntu Software Centre

[andrewferguson]

Hi,
Is there any way to get an app that was built in LiveCode onto the Ubuntu software centre?
Thanks,
Andrew

[FourthWorld]

Yes, but it's a bit of work. Not too much, just tedious, and we could really benefit from a drag-and-drop Debian packaging tool for LC apps, which I'll be working on this summer when I get back from vacation.

When I was at the Ubuntu Developer Summit last year I made some great contacts with the folks who maintain the USC, so if you run into any snags setting up your PPA or any other aspect of the process let me know and I'll see if I can lend a hand or find someone who can.

[richmond62]

It would also be "great fun" if there were a PPA for Livecode.

[FourthWorld]

It would also be "great fun" if there were a PPA for Livecode.

PPAs (Personal Packae Archives) are generally set up by developer, not language. Ay developer can set up a PPA - the Ubuntu team provides instructions here:
http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/

[richmond62]

Now that Livecode OSS 6.1 is not going to require a "phone home" to get going there is no reason why RunRev should not set up a PPA.

[FourthWorld]

Now that Livecode OSS 6.1 is not going to require a "phone home" to get going there is no reason why RunRev should not set up a PPA.

Agreed, and I've discussed this with Ben. The team has a lot on their plate right now (everyone wants everything all right now <g>), but this is definitely on the to-do list.

In the meantime, the installer available at livecode.com does a good job for making LiveCode available on just about any modern Linux system, including Ubuntu.

[richmond62]

I've been using Livecode on Linux for about 8 years; starting with version 2.2.1.

Livecode is definitely a "Linux Beastie", and I love it.

[FourthWorld]

Apparently the Ubuntu Software Center packaging team now accepts submissions in zip files as well, so while it would be nice to make a .deb packaging tools for LC, existing zip tools can do the job:

http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/my-apps-packages/

[richmond62]

LC_gadfly.png

This sounds rather good.

However I am faced with an odd problem:

I should like to release an Open Source version of my Devawriter Pro for Linux, while maintaining the Macintosh and Windows versions as locked programs.
However, given the nature of LIvecode, there is no reason why somebody could not get hold of my OS code for my Linux version and recompile
it for other platforms.

I wonder if there is anyway to do what I want?

[FourthWorld]

@Richmond: I've been thinking about this myself for a project on the horizon, and very similarly to your plan: I want to make the program available without fee for Linux users, as a way of giving back to the community that's given me so much free stuff over the years, with the development costs effectively subsidized by Mac and Windows licenses, plausibly enough since those audiences are accustomed to paying for everything anyway, all the way down to their OS.

In a world where the Creative Commons license is explicitly discouraged for software, the only other option I can think of is to keep the code proprietary and give the app away the Linux version gratis. It's either that or write your own license, which may be a good option but probably not very useful since there would be so little familiarity with it that few would confidently contribute to the project, so in effect you'd be no better off than just keeping the source closed.

This way it's only free-as-in-beer and not as-in-freedom, and there may be some in the Linux world so enamored of truly free software that they won't use the app. So it goes; there's never any way to make 100% of all people completely satisfied.

For most folks who enjoy free software, they're not programmers and have no interest in the source code anyway. For them, free-as-in-beer is enough.

With Firefox, for example, among the many hundreds of millions who use it, only a few thousand contribute to the source, probably less than 0.01% of the audience as a whole. I see nothing wrong with that; we can't expect everyone to be a programmer, but they should be able to enjoy free software just as much as anyone else.

This is where I've landed with some things I'm working on, and for now it seems a reasonably good way to go. Like a friend once advised me, "You should only use a FOSS license after you've thoroughly and confidently removed every reason not to, because once the cat's out of the bag there's no way to put it back, while a proprietary license can include a FOSS option at any time."

[richmond62]

LC_gadfly.png

Thank you, Richard Gaskin, for the best piece of advice I have had for years!