Clarification on GPL source code requirement

[tetsuo29]

Hi. Does anyone out there know what the requirement of providing source code under the GPL with the Community Edition requires?

Do you need to distribute your source stack(s) in order to fulfill the requirement? Or, can you simply export your source code to a text file and fulfill the requirement?

[FourthWorld]

Why go to the extra effort of generating the text file? It would be much easier for yourself, and more convenient for your contributors, to just post the stack files.

[tetsuo29]

Why go to the extra effort of generating the text file?

Really? I think it's quite obvious- in order to be able to comply with the letter of the GPL and yet somehow still violate it's spirit- like what Tivo did. So, I get your point and yet I'm still curious about a direct answer to my question.

[FourthWorld]

It wasn't obvious to me, so I appreciate your clarification.

In Tivo's case they relied on proprietary hardware in their attempt to thwart the GPL's goals, giving rise to the term Tivoization to characterize efforts viewed as bad-faith compliance with GPL requirements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Attempts to comply only with selectively narrow interpretations of the GPL's source disclosure requirements while putting in extra effort to thwart the spirit of sharing it embodies may or may not be legally enforceable as a copyright violation, depending on the specifics of the case at hand, legal precedent in the relevant jurisdiction, and the experience of the judge presiding over the case.

I wouldn't wager my own company by betting against enforcement, however, given the nearly-universal acceptance of the Berne Agreement on which most copyright law is based.

Even if I were inclined to put myself at legal risk, one certainty is that any effort to obfuscate or complicate source disclosure is always frowned on by the software community. So even if I were to apply all of my inventiveness to finding ways to thwart some forms of compliance with the GPL, the best that could happen would still mean damaging my reputation.

The GPL is based on The Four Freedoms:
- Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
- Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freed ... oftware%29

These freedoms actively encourage modification and redistribution by the community, as embodied in the terms of the license.

With LiveCode, since stack files are binary collections of objects in which scripts are only a part, I would consider it safer to distribute the stack files, since the work cannot be meaningfully recreated from the scripts alone.

The GPL is a choice. No one is required to use GPL-licensed software, or to develop software that includes GPL-licensed code.

If open sharing and collaboration is your goal, the GPL is a great choice.

But if you have other goals, it would be better to choose a license that reflects your intentions.

I should note that I'm neither an attorney nor a representative of the copyright holder of the LiveCode engine, RunRev Ltd. Any questions about the specifics of use for any copyrighted work should be submitted to the work's legal owner. If you want a definitive answer on this, RunRev's legal counsel can be reached via support@runrev.com, where your question will be forwarded to the appropriate staff.

[tetsuo29]

But if you have other goals, it would be better to choose a license that reflects your intentions.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't tempted to distribute something and only comply with the letter of the law. And, I get your point about the intents/goals of the GPL and it is a point well taken.

However, from a strictly philosophical point of view, it'd still be interesting to me to know the answer to the question. Maybe I'll take your advice and use the email address you mentioned.

Oh, and there's another way of looking at this- can LiveCode stacks be converted to text to be used with CVS? I did a little Googling and found the following:
http://livecode.com/blog/2013/10/08/ver ... -livecode/

I only skimmed that but the idea of being able to convert stacks to text and back would be helpful in some situations.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[tetsuo29]

From the GPLv3:

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

So, it looks like I have an answer. Distributing source code in the case of LiveCode means distributing your stack(s).