Page 1 of 1

Free software, closed source

Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:34 pm
by trenatos
I've been playing with LiveCode for a bit now, from simple form functions to sockets networking and I'm having lots of fun.

I'm looking at the licensing and from what I understand, all parts of a project have to be open source when using the community edition?

I'd love to see it changed so that one can make free software, with close source.

Are *no* parts allowed to be closed source?

I've no intention of releasing my server code as open source, would that have an effect on using LC Community Edition?

I honestly do no understand the OSS limitation on the community edition.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:39 am
by mwieder
I'm having lots of fun.
Cool.
Are *no* parts allowed to be closed source?
That's correct.
I honestly do no understand the OSS limitation on the community edition.
Obviously.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:20 am
by trenatos
Defining *no* parts:
I'm building a chat application that talks to a piece of server software I've written.
Would I have to release my server code (Written in CFML, NOT in LiveCode) OSS as well to comply with that rule?

And no, I seriously do not understand why they would choose to limit software to OSS only, rather than simply *free*

I'm not as likely to release software if I *have* to release the source for it as well.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:31 am
by mwieder
Ah. That's different.

No, if you're not distributing the server, just the client end of things then there's no need to open-source the server. That can run behind the scenes and you're free to do whatever you want.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:34 am
by mwieder
Here's an analogy for you:

MySQL is released under the same sort of license. You're free to use MySQL on your server, write code that grabs data from the database and present it in a web page, etc, all without any restrictions. You can use MySQL client routines in your software without any problems as well. MySQL has become pretty much ubiquitous because of this - most everyone uses it on servers behind the scenes for some purpose or other.

But if you release a product that contains the MySQL engine then you're obligated by the licensing agreement to make your source code available under the same licensing terms.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:24 pm
by trenatos
I just got a reply from RunRev to an email I sent.

Here's the portion of the email that is of interest for this discussion:

"You cannot redistribute software that includes closed source libraries with the
open source version of LiveCode. Anything that is part of your application must be
made available under the same GPL license. However you may purchase a commercial
LiveCode to do this, see below.

Since your cold fusion server code forms a part of the LiveCode application, you
would also need to make it available."

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:31 pm
by FourthWorld
Are you using LiveCode Server, or the desktop version?

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:50 pm
by trenatos
Desktop, connecting to a non-LC server.

Here's part of my original email to them:

"I'm developing a few programs using sockets that connects to a ColdFusion server running code I've created.
Under the current Community Edition licensing, am I or am I not required to release my ColdFusion code, since it's an integral part of making the LC based software work"

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:40 pm
by FourthWorld
It sounds like there may have been some confusion with regard to the client/server components. Normally, the GPL is interpreted as keeping client and server obligations separate, except when the AGPL is used. Kevin's specifically talked about his decision not to use AGPL, and since you're not using the server version it would seem that wouldn't be a consideration anyway.

I'll drop a note to RunRev to see if someone there can step in to clarify.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:37 pm
by richmond62
" I seriously do not understand why they would choose to limit software to OSS only, rather than simply *free*"

I would have thought that was pretty obvious:

Runtime Revolution, the makers of Livecode have to eat and so forth:

therefore they produce an Open Source Version and a Closed Source Version.

The main difference being that the later version costs money, and for thyat money you can produce closed source software
which means that all and everybody cannot pinch your code and profit from it themselves.

Or, put another way: if you want to make some money, you have to spend some money first.

There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

And, what is amazing is that Livecode have made an OSS version in the first place.

The OSS version has been bank-rolled by people like myself who have donated money towards that version. However, our donations is not
going to keep food in the fridges of the developers for all that long, so theiir main source of continuing revenue will be the Closed Source Version.

Re: Free software, closed source

Posted: Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:36 pm
by trenatos
I think you misunderstand.

I fully support a commercial and non-commercial version of LC.

What I don't understand is the choice to go OSS rather than simply free for the non-commercial version.

I'm less likely to release free software that does nifty things like connect to my servers for whatever reasons (Updates, files, chats, synching, etc.) since opening up the source code means a would-be attacked can see all the things going on in the software.

Yes, that's possible by network sniffing and reverse-engineering, but neither of those methods are foolproof and they can be thwarted in progress.

Open Source vs Free has nothing to do with making money.

If the license was made so that I could release free software but closed source, I'd be more likely to do so.

I plan on getting the commercial license anyway at some point, but it's hard justifying a $500 license purchase without a customer base or at least a beta version (Which would require release of source code).

I'm perfectly aware that developers need to make money, but again, I'm talking about the non-commercial version being limited to open source binaries/source rather than just allowing the use of the non-commercial software for creating free software.