News from Nowhere

[tperry2x]

Make a tea by the fire and enjoy an evening's read...

... and if you fall asleep after the first paragraph
All I want, and all I've ever asked for, is just all that blurb in english - and I don't mean in legalese. I just wanted it to say - here's the gist of it, what you can and can't do. For the full unabridged version that has to go with this software, carry on scrolling. [and may the force be with you]

That does not seem unreasonable to me.

One thing that does jump out at me - if the various legal blurb has to go in the IDE, then surely it also has to accompany anything that's also made with it too? Currently it never is.

I'm not asking that purely because I can't get my head around the legal guff. I bet 90%+ of people who stumble upon it won't know what it's going on about either.

If it's to mean anything to anyone, and if your intention is for it to be read and understood, then it needs an English synopsis (in my humble opinion), otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

[FourthWorld]

I'm not asking that purely because I can't get my head around the legal guff.

Whenever we decide we can't do something we're always right.

Reading the GPL may not be as much fun as reading code, but it has lower cognitive requirements.

I bet 90%+ of people who stumble upon it won't know what it's going on about either.

A good argument for stewards of a work to be able to guide their audience.

If it's to mean anything to anyone, and if your intention is for it to be read and understood, then it needs an English synopsis (in my humble opinion), otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

Conversational English is imprecise. That lack of specificity makes it unsuitable for both coding instructions for a machine and defining the terms for sharing code with humans.

The FAQ is more colloquial than the license itself, but long. Few read the whole thing. Try a search for a topic of interest and see what you find there.

[tperry2x]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I personally think it's a waste of KB, but it obviously has to be there for the people who care about that kind of thing.

[richmond62]

Legalese just results in obfuscation.

The 10 commandments don't.

Nor, for that matter do the Yamas and Niyamas.

So what we need is 'boil down' the legalese into a series of simple DOs and DON'Ts.

[FourthWorld]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
I personally think it's a waste of KB, but it obviously has to be there for the people who care about that kind of thing.

Anyone contributing to or distributing OXT is legally bound by the terms the license describes.

Personally, I would make no significant investment of money or time in any property unless I understood what I was investing in.

[FourthWorld]

So what we need is 'boil down' the legalese into a series of simple DOs and DON'Ts.

That's what all legal agreements are.

Vaguery is obfuscation. Precision is merely boring.

How much is the license did you read, and which parts did you find difficult? I may be able to help locate the relevant portions of their FAQ covering that.

[richmond62]

I spent 48 hours with my lawyer trying to understand an open source licence about 15 years syne: what with her sloppy English, my sloppy Bulgarian, and the pea-brained fellow we later met at the Ministry of Education, in Sofia: his sloppy French, my sloppy French, and the fact he obviously was not interested at all . . . almost completely killed that sort of thing for me.

Legal documents may well be lists of dos and don'ts, but couched in such language that they are extremely for anyone but lawyers to ken at all.

[FourthWorld]

Legal documents may well be lists of dos and don'ts, but couched in such language that they are extremely for anyone but lawyers to ken at all.

Which parts of the GPL are you struggling with? I may be able to help find the relevant portion of the FAQ.

[tperry2x]

Discussing whatever is in the license agreement is a moot point, because nobody is ever going to read it if they can't understand it.

What can't I understand about it? Pretty much any of it.
Seriously, to anyone without a degree in legalese, what is an MPL?

As these source files are considered modifications to the originals they are
included at http://livecode.com/downloads/osslicenses.zip for conformance with the
MPL 1.1.

You follow the link and download the osslicenses, then look inside to read:

the contents of this file may be used under the terms of either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead of those above.

I'm sorry? What?

At this point I stopped reading and deleted that cr** As I'm sure everyone else will.

I could pick out many many more examples.
Instead of perhaps challenging anyone who has pushback around the licensing not being clear, perhaps a better approach would be to write an explanation of each part as a PDF with links, rather than assuming everyone can interpret this - and wrongly assuming anyone developing with the IDE actually cares enough to not just push something out anyway - license be damned.

[FourthWorld]

Discussing whatever is in the license agreement is a moot point, because nobody is ever going to read it if they can't understand it.

A great many developers read their licenses, including most employed by larger companies. Nearly all independent contractors must at least claim to read their licenses, since most contracts require being able to demonstrate a reasonable good faith effort to avoid exposing their clients to copyright infringement claims.

Seriously, to anyone without a degree in legalese, what is an MPL?

Searching reveals that "MPL 1.1" refers to the Mozilla Public License, where its text and related commentary can be found here:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mpl+1.1+license&t=fpas&ia=web

the contents of this file may be used under the terms of either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead of those above.

Dual licensing, and license compatibility in general, is discussed in the GPL FAQ. IIRC the distinctions of the LGPL are summarized there as well.

At this point I stopped reading and deleted that crap. As I'm sure everyone else will.

Of course any end-user can delete whatever they like.

But as trusted stewards of this work, we'll want to retain a copy of the license in anything shared with others, a requirement of using the code.

From the GPL v3 preamble:

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

Instead of perhaps challenging anyone who has pushback around the licensing not being clear, perhaps a better approach would be to write an explanation of each part as a PDF with links, rather than assuming everyone can interpret this - and wrongly assuming anyone developing with the IDE actually cares enough to not just push something out anyway - license be damned.

My aim is to encourage professional work that meets the standards developers expect and any potential adopting organization will need. Even contributors to this project are bound by the terms of the licenses governing the work; choosing not to read them will not absolve a contributor of responsibilities described in them.

It's true, whether we're talking about the ongoing tedium of coding for exception handling and security, or the one-time cost of reading the licenses governing the code we use, there are some aspects of the developer's craft that are more fun than others.

As for summaries, who would you task for that?

Most of the world has found the summaries from the GPL authors, the Free Software Foundation, more than sufficient.

And for those still wanting more, there is no shortage of existing commentary on open source licensing, and software licensing in general.

[tperry2x]

A great many developers read their licenses, including most employed by larger companies. Nearly all independent contractors must at least claim to read their licenses.

I am neither employed by the OXT project, and neither am I an independent contractor. I'm merely a hobbyist programmer.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=mpl+1.1+license&t=fpas&ia=web

That's great and everything, but you are missing the point slightly. Rather than have to go off and search the entire internet for snippets of information here and there, what I'm proposing is we have all this information in an easy to read format - and only the relevant bits, included within the licensing dialog.

Dual licensing, and license compatibility in general, is discussed in the GPL FAQ. IIRC the distinctions of the LGPL are summarized there as well.

Okay, but can you give me a straight answer as to what we can and can't do with the software?

Of course any end-user can delete whatever they like.
But as trusted stewards of this work, we'll want to retain a copy of the license in anything shared with others, a requirement of using the code.

The license will of course remain in the IDE - I'm not talking about deleting that. I'm talking about the fact I deleted what was ultimately supposed to be an explanation of some of this (because it offered no help at all), and my point earlier about surely this has to also go with anything that is created with the IDE - that also stands. However, I'm sure we are all trying our best, but that's the whole point of this: anyone can look at anyone else's work and improve upon it. We aren't closed source, like LC now are.

From the GPL v3 preamble:

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

So, with that said - why have Livecode put the prebuilts behind a login barrier, effectively denying parts of the Community source to others? Does that action not break exactly what you've described above? [emphasis mine]

My aim is to encourage professional work that meets the standards developers expect and any potential adopting organization will need. Even contributors to this project are bound by the terms of the licenses governing the work; choosing not to read them will not absolve a contributor of responsibilities described in them.

I'm not looking to absolve any responsibility - "responsibility" Really? - to who? I'm not contracted, I'm not getting paid, people can take or leave my suggestions - they can turn my code down as trash, or they can accept it, but as I mention - this is just a hobby and I'm learning as I go - as I'm sure we all are. That's the beauty of collaborative non-closed work.

the one-time cost of reading the licenses governing the code we use, there are some aspects of the developer's craft that are more fun than others.

I'm focusing on what I can do. I'm not at all interested in pushing papers, the governance of licenses or the enforcement of them. Plus the fact that it's not ignoring any "responsibility" as you put it, it's that it's been made as clear as mud in the first place. So, we come back full-circle to the original point of this not being 'human readable'.

As for summaries, who would you task for that?

You seem to know a lot about them, so....

Most of the world has found the summaries from the GPL authors, the Free Software Foundation, more than sufficient.
And for those still wanting more, there is no shortage of existing commentary on open source licensing, and software licensing in general.

I'm sure there is, but they have legal teams and departments to cover such things. Our deployment coding team at Central IT do not get involved in the minutiae of licenses. They farm this out to a paid-for third party. They are professional coders, yet they do not get involved with applying licenses and setting out the terms within. This is firmly outside the scope of their work, as it is for a lot of developers.

[FourthWorld]

...what I'm proposing is we have all this information in an easy to read format - and only the relevant bits, included within the licensing dialog.

Agreed. Most find the GPL license itself suitable for this.

So, with that said - why have Livecode put the prebuilts behind a login barrier, effectively denying parts of the Community source to others? Does that action not break exactly what you've described above?

From the GPL v3 preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

A momentary project does not encumber an author with a lifetime of obligation.

LC's open source offering was officially discontinued on Aug 31, 2021. As a courtesy they maintained both object and source code repositories for quite some time after, encouraging those interested to fork the repo for any longer-term use, noting at the time that the repos would not be permanent.

As for summaries, who would you task for that?

You seem to know a lot about them, so....

I can't speak for the original author of the work, or the authors of the license they chose to express their intentions. I am also not an attorney, so nothing I write can be construed as binding guidance.

When I've needed that I include the license, with its preamble orienting the reader to the license's goals.

I've rarely found much more needed by developers, who tend to be self-directed and adept at learning by nature.

Most of the world has found the summaries from the GPL authors, the Free Software Foundation, more than sufficient.
And for those still wanting more, there is no shortage of existing commentary on open source licensing, and software licensing in general.

I'm sure there is, but they have legal teams and departments to cover such things. Our deployment coding team at Central IT do not get involved in the minutiae of licenses. They farm this out to a paid-for third party. They are professional coders, yet they do not get involved with applying licenses and setting out the terms within. This is firmly outside the scope of their work, as it is for a lot of developers.

In larger companies you''ll sometimes see counsel provide a checklist of licenses compatible with project needs, and developers are instructed to only use components from compatibly-licenses repos.

In practice, through my decade contributing to the SoCal Linux Expo and the Ubuntu project, I've come to appreciate just how many devs are already familiar with standardized open source licenses. So whether self-directed or meeting well-thought-out mandates, compliance with license requirements for open source projects is usually fairly easy.

[tperry2x]

A momentary project does not encumber an author with a lifetime of obligation.

LC's open source offering was officially discontinued on Aug 31, 2021. As a courtesy they maintained both object and source code repositories for quite some time after, encouraging those interested to fork the repo for any longer-term use, noting at the time that the repos would not be permanent.

So what are you actually saying here? That they've abandoned open source and effectively made the engine build process useless.

So, there will be no new engine for Mac OS or Windows - which makes a mockery of the engine source even being posted.

Seems like we'll have to rely on someone else more helpful to provide this.

As for the other points, yawn.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

One encouraging thought: with standardized licenses like the ones most open source projects use, you only need to read it once for all projects that use that license. The opposite is true with EULAs for proprietary software; they can differ, and often do, requiring us to read every one of them for every version of every package our work depends on.

I would just add that there are explicit exceptions with the license of LC Community (and therefore OXT), but that pertains to now old version OpenSSL ... other than that I totally agree and appreciate the rest of what you wrote.

When this thing was first getting going there were a few people on related Facebook groups, who seemed very confused about what could and couldn't be done with it. They didn't seem to understand that you can release an app for sale that you create with community editions BUT you HAVE TO share your source code (unlocked stack) for the app you built with the Community version, it is not optional. What I'm not sure about is how we would be able to tell if a stack was created with the Community Edition or saved with Commercial Edition but without locked scripts. In the past I've had both installed. I've never locked my scripts, to me that seems to run counter to what was so great about those early days of HyperCard and HC forums (like on AOL).

[OpenXTalkPaul]

LC's open source offering was officially discontinued on Aug 31, 2021. As a courtesy they maintained both object and source code repositories for quite some time after, encouraging those interested to fork the repo for any longer-term use, noting at the time that the repos would not be permanent.

Ahhhhhh no! I don't want to (again) get into rehashing old history or hard-feelings about the manner it was done, but accurate history and objective truth matter to me, I won't allow 'alternative facts' to proliferate if I can stop it...

There was no courtesy in the way that it went down.

They did not encourage anything but signing up for their new IDE as a service subscription model, if you can honestly call that encouragement, while claiming that the Community Edition was the whole reason that their sales weren't so good.

They also did NOT maintain ANYTHING after that date, the GitHub repos, last updated July 29th 2021, were archived.
Some files like Monte's prebuilt externals (source I later found in a separate BitBucket repo) and the slightly more up-to-date FOSS "prebuilt-binaries" that were needed to build 'as-is', and which were on their server, were thereafter behind a password wall.

Not only that, but they removed ALL community build installers from their servers over night, until there was some community outrage about it and then they put them back online. In the interim Seth and I and a few other people were scrambling to collect as many of the installers as we could still find.

After that week had ended they deleted the huge thread about the announcement that had gained 10s of pages worth of comments. Which was a real shame because there was some really interesting comments and suggestions that I guess they just didn't want people to see (perhaps so they could claim something like 'the overwhelming response to ending open-source was positive' or something to that effect). If anyone wants to read the actual responses, I made a PDF of all of those pages just prior to when that thread was deleted.

[tperry2x]

Ahhhhhh no! I don't want to (again) get into rehashing old history or hard-feelings about the manner it was done,

Neither did I (personally, I never wanted to hear from them again), but I didn't expect them to put things behind a login barrier....

...but accurate history and objective truth matter to me, I won't allow 'alternative facts' to proliferate if I can stop it...

Me too, and I won't have anyone saying their actions were somehow justified.

There was no courtesy in the way that it went down.

They did not encourage anything but signing up for their new IDE as a service subscription model, if you can honestly call that encouragement, while claiming that the Community Edition was the whole reason that their sales weren't so good.

They also did NOT maintain ANYTHING after that date, the GitHub repos, last updated July 29th 2021, were archived.
Some files like Monte's prebuilt externals (source I later found in a separate BitBucket repo) and the slightly more up-to-date FOSS "prebuilt-binaries" that were needed to build 'as-is', and which were on their server, were thereafter behind a password wall.

Not only that, but they removed ALL community build installers from their servers over night, until there was some community outrage about it and then they put them back online. In the interim Seth and I and a few other people were scrambling to collect as many of the installers as we could still find.

Thank you Paul, for telling it like it is.
Perhaps we should put a PDF up, it's part of the history (backstory) after all. It shows the manner in which the Open Source Community was abandoned, and LC's actions immediately afterwards. I was there too at the time, to witness this - as anyone else was: reading the forums and not understanding 'the why' - no matter how they tried to justify it.

I just want the files we need, ultimately. End of.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

I want to publicly apologize to Richard for implying something Trumpian about his comment, I understand how insulting that can be to people who still care about the U.S. Constitution. I'm Sorry.

The rest of it was a bit 'triggered', although it was an accurate account from my perspective.

Tom locked this topic and I agree, we don't want to keep wasting our time rehashing that mess. There's little or no point in doing that unless it directly relates to working on IDE/Engine somehow.
This thread was about UI features and broken syntax at one point.

It seems like 'Drawer' and tear-off menus features were part of now defunct Classic / Carbon APIs anyway:
Drawers deprecated since macOS 10.13 (High Sierra)
https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... t/nsdrawer#
Tear off menus deprecated since way back in MacOS X 10.2:
https://developer.apple.com/documentati ... guage=objc

The GNUStep might still support those, I'm not sure.